U.  C.  L.  A. 
EDUC.  DEPT, 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


PETER   RAMUS 

AND  THE 

EDUCATIONAL   REFORMATION   OF  THE 
SIXTEENTH   CENTURY 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •    BOSTON  •   CHICAGO 
DALLAS  •   SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON  •    BOMBAY  •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD. 

TORONTO 


•  "r.i 

* 


-,,  - 

tuisi  Cfallts'cs,  quod  Xatto  fmt 
J^omani   princeps      Tullius     eloquif  . 

••^^y;•^LVil^.v^^?ll/.J/.;:•:.'j:^v^^>>!!M:^ 


PETER  RAMUS 


AND   THE 


EDUCATIONAL  REFORMATION 


OF   THE 


SIXTEENTH  CENTURY 


BY 

FRANK   PIERREPONT   GRAVES 
(PH.D.,  COLUMBIA) 

PROFESSOR  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  EDUCATION 
IN  THE  OHIO  STATE  UNIVERSITY 


gorfe 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 
1912 

All  rights  reserved 


U.  C.  L. 
EDUC.  DEPL 


COPYRIGHT,  1912, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  elect  retyped.     Published  September,  1912. 


EDUC.  DEPT, 


Education 
Library 
L-8 


TO 
PAUL   MONROE 

WHO  HAS  GIVEN   TO   THE  HISTORY  OF  EDUCATION 

ITS  PRESENT  HIGH   STATUS 

IN  AMERICA 


L 


PREFACE 

IT  is  difficult  to  understand  why  Ramus  has 
been  so  much  neglected  by  writers  upon  the  six- 
teenth century.  He  was  probably  the  foremost 
French  philosopher  of  his  century,  and  he  stands 
well  among  the  great  educators,  effective  orators, 
and  lofty  characters  of  the  world's  history.  In 
many  respects  he  seems  a  striking  forerunner  of 
modern  times.  Alcuin,  Abelard,  Petrarch,  Valla, 
Erasmus,  Luther,  Ramus,  and  Descartes  are  mile- 
stones that  mark  the  pathway  of  progress  from 
medievalism.  Yet  in  few  general  histories  do 
the  life  and  work  of  this  remarkable  reformer 
figure  in  any  detail.  In  treatises  written  in  Eng- 
lish he  is  barely  mentioned,  and  while  there  have 
been  for  half  a  century  some  extended  accounts 
of  his  career  by  French  writers,  and  of  late  Ger- 
man scholars  have  been  making  careful  contribu- 
tions to  elucidate  the  various  phases  of  his  work, 
there  scarcely  exists  anywhere  a  complete  account 
of  his  achievements  that  includes  an  analysis  of 
his  works. 

vii 


Vlll  PREFACE 

Yet  many  pages  are  devoted  in  histories  of 
education  to  such  contemporaries  of  Ramus  in 
France  as  Rabelais  and  Montaigne.  While  these 
men  were  of  great  importance  in  the  develop- 
ment of  literature  and  educational  theory,  they 
seem  to  have  had  comparatively  little  effect  upon 
the  schools  or  the  movements  of  the  times. 
Ramus,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a  practical  re- 
former, a  writer  of  textbooks,  the  founder  of 
a  new  and  influential  point  of  view  in  subject 
matter  and  method,  a  popular  and  successful 
teacher,  and  an  active  correspondent  and  per- 
sonal acquaintance  of  the  educational  leaders  of 
his  day  in  all  countries.  No  man  more  fully 
embodies  the  spirit  of  this  age  of  reconstruction, 
the  storm  and  stress  period  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  Aside  from  the  account  of  his  own 
contributions  to  education  and  theology,  the  life 
and  work  of  Ramus  are  well  worth  studying  for 
the  light  they  shed  upon  such  a  critical  epoch  in 
history. 

In  presenting  this  account  of  Ramus,  I  wish  to 
tender  my  thanks  to  Professor  Frederic  Ernest 
Farrington,  who  first  called  my  attention  to  the 
importance  of  the  subject,  to  Professor  Paul  Mon- 
roe, who  has  critically  reviewed  the  whole  work, 
and  to  Professor  David  E.  Smith,  who  furnished 
me  with  written  suggestions  concerning  my  treat- 


PREFACE  IX 

ment  of  Ramus  as  a  mathematician.  I  am  also 
indebted  to  Miss  Betty  Joffe,  and  to  my  wife, 
Helen  Wadsworth  Graves,  for  several  changes  in 
the  manuscript  and  assistance  in  carrying  the 
book  through  press. 

The  engraved  likeness  of  Ramus,  which  forms 
the  frontispiece  of  this  book,  I  also  owe  to  Pro- 
fessor Farrington,  who  sought  it  out  for  me,  and 
to  the  distinguished  M.  Chatelain,  Conservateur 
de  la  Bibliottiequc  de  la  Sorbonne,  who  photo- 
graphed the  picture  for  me  from  the  Bibliottieque 
de  Boissard  and  developed  the  plate  with  his  own 

hands. 

F.  P.  G. 
AUGUST,  1912. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.    THE  TIMES  OF  RAMUS i 

II.    THE  BREACH  WITH  ARISTOTLE         .        .        .  19 

III.  PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE        ...  48 

IV.  CONVERSION,  PERSECUTION,  AND  DEATH  .        .        .71 

V.    GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  AND  THE  ORGANIZATION  OF 

EDUCATION .        .  108 

VI.    THE  CONTENT  AND  METHOD  OF  THE  TRIVIUM         .  120 

VII.    CONTENT  AND  METHOD  OF  THE  QUADRIVIUM  .        .160 

VIII.    HIGHER  AND  PROFESSIONAL  STUDIES       .        .        .  173 

IX.  VALUE,  SPREAD,  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  RAMISM  .  .  204 

SOURCES,  PRIMARY  AND  SECONDARY 219 


PETER   RAMUS 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  TIMES  OF  RAMUS 

BEFORE  undertaking  a  sketch  of  the  life  and 
achievements  of  Ramus,  it  will  be  well  to  gain  some 
notion  of  his  social  and  political  setting.  To  under- 
stand the  work  of  this  leader,  we  must  make  a  rapid 
survey  of  the  forces  that  were  struggling  for  suprem- 
acy during  the  sixteenth  century  in  northern  Europe, 
especially  in  France.  This  period,  in  the  first  place, 
witnessed  the  development  of  the  Renaissance  and 
of  humanism  in  the  countries  of  the  north.  Here  the 
Greek  and  Latin  literature  came  to  enrich  the  medie- 
val ideals  and  the  course  in  the  seven  liberal  arts. 
While  the  preceding  century  had  been  marked  by 
the  growth  of  the  movement  in  Italy,  this  vitalizing 
development  of  the  Italian  peninsula  was  now  senes- 
cent and  was  degenerating  into  a  mere  '  Ciceronian ' 
formalism.  The  introduction  of  printing,  however, 
had  given  the  movement  a  wider  field  of  action, 


2  PETER   RAMUS 

and  the  renewed  spirit  of  independence  and  criticism 
could  not  be  confined  to  a  single  country.  The 
Renaissance  and  the  classic  literatures  had  leaped 
the  Alps  and  had  rapidly  made  their  way  northward. 
Toward  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century  the  human- 
ists outside  of  Italy  became  very  numerous,  and  the 
movement  came  to  its  height  in  the  northern  lands 
during  the  sixteenth  century. 

Probably  the  earliest  appearance  of  humanism 
beyond  the  peninsula  was  in  the  education  furnished 
through  the  religious  order  of  the  Hieronymians. 
This  brotherhood  had  been  founded  in  Holland  for 
the  purpose  of  instructing  the  poor,  in  religion  and 
the  rudiments,  but  during  the  latter  half  of  the 
fifteenth  century  the  brethren  added  humanistic 
elements  to  their  course  and  soon  had  a  chain  of 
schools  extending  through  the  Netherlands,  Ger- 
many, and  France.1  Connected  with  this  humanistic 
development,  either  as  teacher  or  pupil,  were  such 
men  as  Agricola  (1443-1485),  Reuchlin  (1455-1522), 
and  that  great  leader  of  northern  humanism,  Erasmus 
(1467-1536).  The  Hieronymian  schools  had  a  pro- 

*It  is  still  somewhat  mooted  whether  these  Brethren  of  the 
Common  Lot  actually  maintained  schools  of  their  own,  or  fur- 
nished 'colleges'  or  dormitories  near  schools  already  established. 


THE   TIMES  OF  RAMUS  3 

found  effect  upon  education  and  tended  to  introduce 
the  classics  into  the  universities  and  other  educational 
institutions.  But  there  were  other  schools  that 
were  even  more  directly  the  outgrowth  of  humanism, 
chief  among  which  were  the  Gymnasien  and  the 
Jesuit  'colleges.'  The  Gymnasien  were  given  their 
greatest  impulse  and  more  definite  form  by  Stunn 
during  the  generation  succeeding  the  foundation 
of  his  school  and  university  at  Strassburg  (I538).1 
The  gymnasial  course  of  ten  years,2  which  consisted 
largely  of  Latin  and  Greek,  proved  successful  and 
spread  in  all  directions.  Just  before  the  middle  of 
the  century  the  Jesuit  '  colleges,'  also  with  a  purely 
humanistic  curriculum,  were  started  by  Loyola, 
and  sprang  up  rapidly  throughout  Europe. 

The  universities,  though  narrow,  conservative,  and 
generally  reluctant  to  admit  the  classics,  were  like- 
wise feeling  the  effects  of  the  movement.  By  1470, 
a  professorship  of  Greek  was  established  at  the 
University  of  Paris,  and  while  the  new  learning  met 

1  The  great  repute  of  this  school  at  Strassburg  probably  stamped 
the  name  Gymnasium  upon  the  German  language  as  the  technical 
term  for  the  great  secondary  schools  in  which  the  classics  have 
ever  since  formed  the  basis  of  the  course. 

2  For  the  course  in  full,  see  Barnard's  German  Teachers  and 
Educators,  pp.  196-208. 


4  PETER   RAMUS 

with  formidable  opposition,  it  found  an  influential 
patron  in  the  king,  Francis  I  (r.  1515-1547).  He 
protected  the  humanistic  scholars  and  educators, 
and,  urged  by  Budaeus  (1468-1540)  and  other 
humanists,  founded  in  1530  the  College  of  France,  or 
College  Royal,  with  its  chairs  of  Greek  and  Latin,  as 
a  protest  against  the  scholastic  and  dogmatic  course 
of  the  university.  It  was  in  this  college  that  Ramus, 
who  had  shown  himself  an  ardent  humanist,  was 
eventually  appointed  to  a  professorship.  Humanism 
also  spread  in  the  German  universities.  By  the 
early  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  course  at 
Erfurt,  Leipzig,  Heidelberg,  and  Tubingen  came 
to  include  the  classics,  and  a  number  of  new  human- 
istic universities,  such  as  Wittenberg,  Konigsberg, 
and  Jena,  were  started  about  the  middle  of  the  cen- 
tury. 

Similarly  profound  changes  were  being  effected 
in  England.  A  revival  of  the  classics,  which  had 
been  gradually  gaining  strength,  began  in  earnest 
at  Oxford  toward  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century 
with  the  work  of  Grocyn  and  Linacre,  and  at  Cam- 
bridge in  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  with  the 
lectures  of  Erasmus,  Cheke,  and  Ascham.  More 
and  Wolscy  also  lent  substantial  aid  to  the  movement 


THE   TIMES   OF   RAMUS  5 

through  their  influence  at  court.  Finally,  by  Colet's 
foundation  of  his  humanistic  school  at  St.  Paul's  in 
1509,  a  successful  example  was  set  for  secondary 
education,  which  resulted  in  the  Latin  'grammar' 
school  becoming  the  typical  secondary  organization 
in  England. 

But  the  character  and  the  effects  of  the  Renais- 
sance and  humanism  in  the  north  differed  greatly 
from  those  in  Italy.  The  people  of  the  north  were 
of  a  deeper  and  more  serious  temperament  than  the 
brilliant  and  mercurial  Italians.  With  them  the 
Renaissance  led  less  to  a  desire  for  personal  develop- 
ment, self-realization,  and  individual  achievement, 
and  took  on  a  more  social  and  moral  color.  The 
prime  purpose  of  humanism  in  the  north  became 
the  improvement  of  society,  morally  and  religiously, 
and  much  less  attention  was  paid  to  the  physical, 
intellectual,  and  aesthetic  elements  in  education. 
The  classical  revival  here  pointed  the  way  to  obtain- 
ing a  new  and  more  exalted  meaning  from  the  Scrip- 
tures. Through  the  revival  of  Greek,  northern 
scholars  sought  to  get  away  from  the  ecclesiastical 
doctrines  and  traditions,  and  turned  back  to  the 
essence  of  Christianity  by  studying  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  the  original.  This  suggested  a  similar  in- 


6  PETER   RAMUS 

sight  into  the  Old  Testament,  and  an  interest  in 
Hebrew  was  thereby  aroused.  To  most  people 
in  the  North  a  renewed  study  of  the  Bible  became 
as  important  a  feature  of  humanism  as  an  apprecia- 
tion of  the  classics,  and  the  purer  religious  and  theo- 
logical conception  that  resulted  mark  the  Reforma- 
tion as  an  accompaniment  of  the  Renaissance.  In 
consequence,  most  of  the  humanists  of  the  north 
were  also  religious  reformers,  and  in  Germany,  the 
Netherlands,  France,  and  England  humanism  passed 
lover  into  the  Reformation.  Erasmus  differed  from 
Luther  only  in  believing  that  education  would 
eventually  effect  the  desired  changes.  So  Melanch- 
thon  is  ranked  as  a  reformer,  but  he  was  fully  as 
much  a  humanist,  while  the  great  humanistic  educa- 
tor, Sturm,  was  in  hearty  sympathy  with  the  Ref- 
ormation. Lefevre  and  others  gave  the  first  im- 
pulse to  French  Protestantism  through  a  new  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible.  Colet  endeavored  to  dethrone 
dogma  and  tradition  by  a  better  interpretation  of 
the  Pauline  Epistles  and  the  pseudo-Dionysius. 
And  it  was  evidently  his  humanistic  bent  and  insight 
that  caused  Ramus,  the  educational  reformer  under 
consideration,  to  cast  in  his  lot  with  the  oppressed 
religious  reformers. 


THE   TIMES   OF   RAMUS  7 

Undoubtedly  it  was  the  support  lent  the  cause  of 
religious  and  theological  reform  by  the  awakened 
social  and  moral,  as  well  as  intellectual,  attitude  of 
humanism  in  the  north,  that  enabled  the  series 
of  revolts  which  arose  against  papal  authority 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  to  be  more  successful 
than  were  those  of  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses, 
Wyclif  and  Huss,  in  the  preceding  centuries.  Luther's 
revolt  (1517-1521)  was  primarily  the  result  of  his 
spiritual  struggles  and  of  his  intellectual  desire  to 
formulate  a  better  doctrine,  but  his  persistence  and 
success  must  be  attributed  to  the  sympathetic 
attitude  of  the  time's.  Zwingli  actually  got  his 
start  (1519)  by  learning  from  Erasmus  and  other 
humanists  how  little  basis  there  was  in  the  Bible  for 
the  traditional  theology  and  ritual.  Calvin  (1535) 
was  among  those  who,  after  the  work  of  Lefevre, 
were  led  to  reject  the  traditional  doctrines  and  forms 
through  the  influence  of  northern  humanism  and 
the  study  of  the  Greek  Testament.  While  the  im- 
mediate cause  of  Henry  VIII's  revolt  (1533)  in 
England  was  personal  advantage  and  statecraft, 
it  was  somewhat  the  result  of  the  northern  Renais- 
sance, for  without  the  aid  of  the  independence  and 
individualism  that  had  been  growing  up  in  England 


8  PETER   RAMUS 

as  the  concomitant  of  humanism,  even  the  king  could 
not  have  successfully  contested  with  the  pope. 
Hence  there  is  a  close  connection  in  the  northern 
countries  between  the  Renaissance  and  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  they  are,  in  truth,  but  different  phases  of  the 
same  movement. 

Such  was  the  general  intellectual  and  religious 
situation  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  more 
specific  political  and  social  conditions  and  problems 
in  the  different  countries  during  this  period  are 
equally  important  and  interesting  in  the  history  of 
civilization.  This  century  marked  the  climax  of 
the  Hapsburg  power.  In  1516  Charles  V  inherited 
from  four  grandparents,  each  a  sovereign  in  his  own 
right,  dominion  over  Burgundy,  the  Netherlands, 
Spain  and  the  Spanish  possessions  in  America,  por- 
tions of  Italy,  and  the  Austrian  territories,  and  three 
years  later  he  was,  in  keeping  with  precedent,  elected 
emperor.  But  his  imperial  control  was  mostly 
nominal.  As  an  inheritance  from  feudalism,  Ger- 
many still  consisted  of  two  or  three  hundred  states, 
differing  greatly  from  one  another  in  size  and 
character,  but  all  independent,  and  it  was  not  in- 
tended that  the  emperor,  who  was  elected  on  each 
occasion  by  a  mixed  commission  of  seven  powerful 


THE   TIMES    OF   RAMUS  9 

princes,  should  be,  outside  his  own  realm,  much 
more  than  a  figurehead.  This  condition  of  things 
accounts  for  the  inability  of  the  Diet  of  Worms  (1521) 
and  the  succeeding  imperial  legislation  to  enforce 
its  decrees  against  Luther,  and  for  the  eventual 
acceptance  by  the  emperor  of  the  Peace  of  Augsburg 
(1555),  whereby  each  German  state  was  allowed 
to  choose  for  itself  between  the  Lutheran  and 
Catholic  confessions.  The  next  year  the  gouty 
Charles  laid  down  the  cares  of  government,  after 
transferring  his  eastern  possessions  to  his  brother, 
Ferdinand,  and  the  western  to  his  son,  Philip  II. 
By  this  time  the  Council  of  Trent  (1545-1546  and 
1562-1563)  and  the  rise  and  spread  of  the  Jesuits 
were  bringing  the  religious  controversy  in  Europe  to 
an  acute  stage,  and  Philip  soon  showed  himself  the 
most  ardent  supporter  of  the  pope  and  the  persecutor 
of  all  Protestants,  especially  in  his  Netherland 
dominions.  Meanwhile  the  revolt  of  the  English 
church  had  taken  place  during  the  reigns  of  Henry 
VIII  (1533-1547)  and  Edward  VI  (i  547-1553),  and 
after  a  brief  return  to  Catholicism  and  Protestant 
persecution  under  Mary  (1553-1558),  Elizabeth 
greatly  widened  the  breach  (1558).  Before  the  end 
of  the  century  she  had  assisted  the  Protestant 


IO  PETER   RAMUS 

Netherlands,  frustrated  the  attempt  of  Philip  to 
land  troops  in  Ireland,  and  beaten  off  the  Spanish 
Armada  (1588). 

But  of  more  direct  importance  to  our  understand- 
ing of  the  career  of  Ramus  (1515-1572)  is  the  situation 
in  France  itself.  Here  the  religious  controversy  took 
form  oL  civil  wars  between  the  Catholics  and 


Protestants,  which  lasted  beyond  the  lifetime  of  our 
reformer.  The  Protestants  were  protected  by  Mar- 
garet of  Navarre,  sister  of  Francis  I  (r.  1515-1547), 
but  the  king  himself  was  stirred  up  by  the  theologians 
of  the  University  of  Paris  against  the  reformers.  He 
consented  to  the  burning  of  heretics  in  1535,  which 
led  to  the  flight  of  Calvin  to  Basel.  Here  the 
great  reformer  prepared  the  defense  of  his  belief 
in  The  Institutes  of  Christianity  (1536).  Shortly 
after  this  he  was  called  to  the  spiritual  and  civic 
directorship  of  Geneva,  which,  except  for  a  brief 
interval,  he  held  until  his  death  (1564).  His 
successor  at  Geneva,  Theodore  Beza  (1519-1605),  had 
displayed  great  ability  in  the  defense  of  Protestantism 
at  the  Colloquy  of  Poissy  (1561),  and  both  on  this 
occasion  and  later  was  destined  to  play  an  important 
part  in  the  life  of  Ramus.  Francis  I  meanwhile 
grew  more  and  more  intolerant,  and  two  years  be- 


THE   TIMES   OF   RAMUS  II 

fore  his  death  had  some  three  thousand  Waldenses 
massacred.  His  successor,  Henry  II  (r.  1547-1559), 
also  pledged  himself  to  exterminate  the  Protestants, 
but  did  not  hesitate  to  ally  himself  with  their  co- 
religionists in  Germany  when  he  wished  to  wrest 
away  part  of  the  dominions  of  Charles  V.  Under  the 
short  reign  of  the  weak  sons  of  Henry  —  Francis  II, 
Charles  IX,  and  Henry  III  —  there  was  an  era  of 
almost  constant  civil  war.  Francis  II  (r.  1559-1560) 
had  married  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots.  During  his 
brief  occupancy  of  the  throne,  the  government  was 
controlled  by  his  wife's  two  powerful  French  uncles, 
Francis,  Duke  of  Guise,  and  Charles,  Cardinal  of 
Lorraine,  and  even  after  the  death  of  the  young 
king,  the  Guises  never  surrendered  their  influence. 
The  Guise  cardinal  is  most  prominent  in  the  life 
of  Ramus,  first  as  his  patron  and  protector,  and, 
after  the  reformer's  conversion  to  Calvinism  (1561), 
as  his  inveterate  enemy.  During  the  reign  of  Charles 
IX  (r.  1560-1574),  his  mother,  Catherine  de' Medici, 
was  virtually  the  sovereign,  and  affairs  were  further 
complicated  by  the  union  of  the  Bourbons,  or  younger 
branch  of  the  reigning  family,  with  the '  Huguenots,'  as 
the  French  Calvinists  had  come  to  be  known.  Many 
of  the  Huguenots  belonged  to  noble  families,  as  in 


12  PETER   RAMUS 

the  case  of  the  Prince  of  Conde",  who  represented  a 
collateral  branch  of  the  Bourbons,  and  of  Admiral 
Coligny,  whose  father  had  been  a  marshal  of  France 
and  his  mother  a  Montmorency.  These  leaders  were 
generally  'Huguenots of  state, 'and  their  connection 
with  Protestantism  came  to  confuse  politics  with 
religion,  and  often  proved  embarrassing  to  such 
'Huguenots  of  religion '  as  Ramus.  For  a  time  it 
seemed  as  if  the  Huguenot  party  might  control  the 
government,  and  the  queen-mother  was  forced  to 
issue  the  Edict  of  Toleration  (January  17,  1562), 
permitting  the  Protestants  to  assemble  for  worship 
during  the  day  in  all  places  outside  the  towns. 

But  the  Guises  had  no  intention  of  allowing 
matters  to  rest.  In  the  same  year,  by  a  brutal 
massacre  of  one  thousand  Huguenots,  who  were  wor- 
shiping at  Vassy,  they  precipitated  the  first  of  the 
civil  wars.  During  the  life  of  Ramus  there  were 
three  such  outbreaks  (1562,  1567,  and  1572),  which 
were  characterized  by  the  utmost  savagery  upon 
both  sides.  In  the  first  two  conflicts  Ramus  and 
other  Protestants  were  driven  into  temporary  exile. 
In  1570  peace  was  declared,  and  the  Calvinists  were 
allowed,  for  their  protection,  to  fortify  certain  towns, 
such  as  La  Rochelle,  Montauban,  and  Nlmes. 


THE   TIMES   OF   RAMUS  13 

Coligny  became  a  sort  of  privy  councilor  to  the  king 
and  queen-mother,  but  the  Guises  soon  led  the 
queen  to  believe  that  this  Huguenot  leader  was 
plotting  against  her,  and  they  eventually  brought 
about  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Day 
(August  23-25, 1572).  In  the  course  of  this  butchery 
Coligny  was  slain,  Conde  barely  escaped  by  recanting, 
and  Ramus  suffered  a  most  horrible  death.  After 
the  massacre,  civil  war  again  broke  out,  and  the 
Guises,  with  the  aid  of  the  pope  and  the  Parlement 
of  Paris,  formed  the  Holy  League  for  their  own  inter- 
ests and  the  crushing  of  Protestantism,  and  nearly 
succeeded  in  winning  the  throne.  Not  until  the 
time  of  Henry  IV  and  the  Edict  of  Nantes  (1598) 
were  the  Huguenots  ever  free  from  persecution. 

Throughout   this    series   of   internecine    religious 
conflicts   Ramus   was  principal   of  the   College   of     x 

11   "'  M^ • Jt~*f~-"""-"'m"ma          *      ~~*    ' 

Presles,  as  well  as  a  professor  in  the  College  of  France. 
It  may,  therefore,  be  well  at  this  point  to  examine 
the  academic  foundations  of  Paris,  in  order  to  get 
the  educational  background  of  our  reformer.  The 
colleges  of  which  the  University  of  Paris  was  com- 
posed in  the  sixteenth  century,  in  some  instances 
dated  back  three  or  four  hundred  years.  They  had 
started  as  boarding-houses,  with  resident  masters, 


14  PETER   RAMTJS 

who  conducted  their  students  to  the  Rue  du  Fouarre, 
or  street  upon  which  the  university  schools  were 
located  and  where  the  instruction  was  given.  Among 
these  'colleges'  was  the  famous  one  founded  by 
Robert  Sorbon1  in  1257  for  lay  students  in  theology, 
and  the  College  of  Presles,  established  in  1322,  of 
which  Ramus  was  so  long  the  head.  The  various 
colleges  were  intended  originally  for  students  from 
the  same  district,  province,  or  nation,  and  owed 
their  foundation  to  public  munificence,  private 
benefaction,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Sorbonne,1 
to  both  these  sources.  Now  in  time  it  became  more 
convenient  to  teach  the  students  at  home  in  the 
colleges  than  to  take  them  up  to  the  Rue  du  Fouarre 
for  lectures,  and  the  schools  were,  by  the  close  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  practically  replaced  by  the  colleges 
as  the  centers  of  instruction  in  the  University  of 
Paris.  Some  of  these  institutions  afforded  only 
secondary  training  in  grammar,  rhetoric,  elementary 
dialectic,  and  the  rudiments  of  arithmetic,  but 
others  combined  with  this  the  higher  work  of  the 
'arts'  faculty  of  the  university,  which  now  con- 

1  From  this  sprang  the  Sorbonne,  or  College  of  Liberal  Arts  of 
the  University  of  Paris.  In  the  sixteenth  century  it  was  the 
stronghold  of  conservative  theology. 


THE   TIMES   OF   RAMUS  1 5 

sisted  almost  entirely  of  logic  to  the  minimizing  of 
the  other  liberal  arts.  'Grammar'  schools,  or  sec- 
ondary schools  proper,  had  also  grownj  out  of  the 
cathedral  schools  and  spread  to  the  various  parishes, 
so  that  there  was  some  confusion  between  secondary 
and  higher  education.1  It  will  later  be  seen  that  one 
of  the  reforms  recommended  by  Ramus  dealt  with 
a  more  careful  definition  of  these  two  grades  of 
education.2 

The  way  in  which  the  College  of  France  came  to  > 
be  called  into  being  in  opposition  to  the  traditional 
'  arts '  curriculum  of  the  university  has  already  been 
described  in  the  account  of  humanism.  This  new  -. 
college  was  really  an  association  for  independent 
thought  and  research.  Salaries  from  the  king's 
treasury  were  paid  to  a  body  of  royal  lecturers  or 
professors,  of  whom  Ramus  became  one  through  the 
influence  of  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine,  and,  quite 
contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  university  colleges,  no 
fees  were  required  of  the  students.  The  new  founda- 
tion was  bitterly  opposed  by  the  university  and  the 
spread  of  humanism  was  fought  at  every  turn.  The 

1  Joly,  Trait6  historique  des  Scales  episcopates  et  ecclSsiastiques, 
P.  304. 

2  See  his  Advice  on  the  Reformation  of  the  University,  on  pp.  78-84. 


1 6  PETER   RAMUS 

contest  that  arose  may,  therefore,  be  described  as 
between  the  conservative  forces  of  scholasticism, 
ecclesiasticism,  and  the  masters  of  the  university 
colleges,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  progressive  al- 
liance of  humanism,  Protestantism,  and  the  royal 
lecturers,  on  the  other.  Thus  Ramus,  who  through 
most  of  his  career  was  a  member  of  both  faculties, 
found  himself  between  two  fires.  As  an  avowed 
humanist  and  opponent  of  Aristotle  from  the  begin- 
ning, he  was,  we  shall  see,  eventually  forced  by  the 
logic  of  the  situation  to  declare  publicly  and  at  awful 
sacrifice  his  adhesion  to  Protestantism. 

No  doubt  before  that  time  several  factors  had 
v  combined  to  shape  his  point  of  view.  His  own  educa- 
tion  at  the  College  of  Navarre  was  of  the  traditional 
sort,  with  its  word  for  word  interpretation  of  Priscian, 
Donatus,  and  Alexander  of  Villedieu  in  grammar,  and 
its  abstractions,  trivialities,  and  hair-splitting  dis- 
putations, depending  absolutely  upon  the  authority 
of  the  medieval  Aristotle.  But,  like  most  great 
minds,  Ramus  was  'the  heir  to  all  the  ages.'  Abe- 
lard,  who  moderated  the  crudities  of  scholasticism 
with  selections  from  the  classical  poets  and  opposed 
Plato  to  the  dialectic  of  Aristotle ;  Erasmus,  the 
open  enemy  of  barbarism  and  the  old  formulas  that 


THE    TIMES    OF    RAMUS  17 

held  thought  captive ;  and  many  of  the  other  human- 
ists, such  as  Valla,  Vives,  Agricola,  and  Sturm,  must 
all  be  considered  his  spiritual  forbears.  In  the 
preface  to  his  Studies  in  the  Liberal  Arts,  he  says 
of  the  visit  of  Sturm  to  Paris  in  1529 :  — 

"  Since  the  fair  days  of  Greece  and  Rome,  Rudolph 
Agricola  is  the  first  to  recover  the  usage  of  logic 
and  invite  the  youth  to  search  the  poets  and  orators, 
not  only  as  the  masters  of  style  and  eloquence,  but  as 
models  of  reasoning  and  the  art  of  thinking.  Formed 
at  the  school  of  Agricola,  Johannes  Sturm  first  made 
Paris  recognize  these  splendid  applications  and 
excited  in  the  university  an  incredible  ardor  for 
the  art  of  which  he  had  revealed  the  utility.  It  was 
in  the  lessons  of  this  great  master  that  I  first  learned 
the  use  of  logic  and  then  taught  it  to  the  youth  in 
quite  a  different  spirit  from  the  sophists,  relegating 
to  them  their  furor  for  disputation." 

But  the  greatest  master  of  Ramus  was  Aristotle 
himself,  whom  in  the  medieval  form  he  so  bitterly 
opposed.  It  will  be  seen  that  his  logic  and  spirit 
were  based  upon  those  of  the  great  Stagyrite,  when 
properly  comprehended.  Undoubtedly,  too,  Ramus 
owed  much,  as  he  frankly  confesses,  to  Socrates, 
Plato,  Galen,  and  the  Stoics,  and  even  to  Cicero  and 


1 8  PETER   RAMUS 

Quintilian,  whose  absolute  authority  he  by  no  means 
admitted.1  In  his  general  attitude  it  is  likely  that  he 
was  indebted  to  Lefevre  and  Jean  le  Masson  ('La- 
tomus'),  and  in  certain  parts  of  his  work  to  Oronce 
Finee,2  the  mathematician,  and  to  Etienne  Dolet, 
Louis  Meigret,  Jacques  Dubois,  and  other  gramma- 
rians of  his  own  time  and  land.  But  we  shall  have 
further  opportunity  to  witness  these  influences 
fairly  as  we  follow  out  the  life  and  work  of  our  re- 
former. We  have  now  surveyed  his  intellectual, 
political,  and  social  setting,  and  can  hold  him  some- 
what in  perspective. 

1  See  pp.  42  ff .  s  See  p.  59. 


CHAPTER  II 


PIERRE  DE  LA  RAMEE/  later  known  as  Petrus 
Ramus,2  was  born  in  i5i5,3  at  Cust,4  Picardy. 
His  struggles  to  secure  an  education  remind  us  of  the 
early  days  of  many  a  more  recent  scholar  and  educator. 

1  The  chief  sources  for  the  life  of  Ramus  are  the  accounts  of  his 
three    disciples.  —  John    Thomas   Freigius,   in   a  preface   to   his 
Commentaries  on  Ramus' s  Discourse  on  Cicero;  Theophilus  Banosius, 
in  a  preface  to  Ramus's  Posthumous  Commentaries  on  the  Christian 
Religion;  and  especially  Nicholas  of  Nancel,  in  his  Life  of  Peter 
Ramus.     Most  of  the  works  of  Ramus  himself  also  furnish  us  with 
a  great  deal  of  information.    Waddington,  Desmaze,  and  others 
have  endeavored  to  unify  these  accounts. 

2  He  assumed  this  Latinized  name  upon  entering  college.    It  is 
not  an  exact  translation  and  should  rather  have  been  Rameus  or 
a  Ramo. 

3  Joly  and  Goujet  give  the  date  of  his  birth  as  1502  on  the  basis 
of  a  note  upon  the  poem,  Navarride,  by  Palma  Cayet  in  1604,  but 
this  former  pupil  of  Ramus  had  not  been  associated  with  him  for 
half  a  century,  and,  to  judge  from  the  evidence  of  Freigius  and 
Banosius,  his  memory  played  him  false. 

*  An  ancient  town  on  the  border  of  the  department  of  the  Oise, 
a  short  distance  from  Noyon,  where  Calvin  was  born.  It  is  also 
spelt  Cultia,  Cusia,  Cus,  Cuz,  Cuth,  Cut,  and  in  half  a  dozen  other 
ways. 

19 


20  PETER   RAMUS 

He  was  descended  from  a  noble  family,  but  the 
conquest  of  Charles  the  Bold  had  driven  his  grand- 
father from  the  estate  in  Burgundy  and  forced  him 
to  become  a  charcoal  burner  in  an  obscure  village. 
The  father  of  Ramus  passed  his  life  in  labor  on  a 
small  farm  near  the  same  place,  and  died  when  Peter 
was  little  more  than  a  child.  The  boy  early  showed 
a  marked  taste  for  study,  and  soon  exhausted  the 
meager  learning  of  the  village  schoolmaster.  He 
then  pushed  on  to  Paris  in  pursuit  of  further  knowl- 
edge, but  was  twice  forced  by  poverty  to  return  home. 
At  length,  however,  he  obtained  employment  as  a 
servant1  to  a  rich  student  at  the  College  of  Navarre,2 
and  thus  secured  the  scholastic  opportunities  he 
craved.  Though  but  twelve  years  of  age,  young 
Ramus  was  large  and  strong,  and  undertook  to  at- 
tend his  master  by  day  and  pursue  his  own  studies 
at  night.  By  attaching  a  stone  to  a  lighted  cord, 
he  provided  an  automatic  alarm  for  awakening  after 
a  few  hours  of  sleep,  and,  although  troubled  at 

1  This  was  not  an   uncommon  procedure   with  poor  students 
at  Paris.     Cf.  Mullinger,  University  of  Cambridge,  346  f.,  for  a 
similar  situation  at  that  institution. 

2  This  institution  was  founded  in  1304  by  the  queen,  Jeanne  de 
Navarre,  wife  of  Philip  the  Fair,  upon  the  height  of  Sainte  Ge"ne- 
vieve.    See  pp.  13  f. 


THE   BREACH   WITH   ARISTOTLE  21 

times  with  his  eyes,  his  courage  was  never  daunted. 
In  time  he  passed  through  the  secondary  curriculum, 
and  then  spent  three  years  and  a  half  upon  the  higher 
course  of  the  day  in  dialectic.  This  latter  period 
exercised  a  decisive  influence  upon  his  whole  career 
He  soon  conceived  a  high  esteem  for  dialectic,  to- 
gether with  a  disgust  for  the  way  it  was  being  taught 
in  the  colleges,  and  began  his  attack  upon  Aristotle 
and  scholasticism.  What  repelled  him  most  was 
the  barrenness  of  the  current  dialectic  method  for 
any  real  use  in  the  'arts'  or  in  life.  "When  I  came 
to  Paris,"  he  tells  us,1  "I  fell  into  the  subtleties  of 
the  sophists,  and  they  taught  me  the  liberal  arts 
through  questions  and  disputes,  without  ever  show- 
ing me  a  single  thing  of  profit  or  service."  In  his 
Studies  in  Dialectic* he  gives  a  much  more  detailed 
and  graphic  picture  of  the  whole  formal  and  useless 
method  of  instruction  then  in  vogue,  together  with 
the  way  hi  which  a  new  point  of  view  and  freedom 
in  thinking  eventually  came  to  him.  He  declares :  - 
"Never  amidst  the  clamors  of  the  college  where  I 
passed  so  many  days,  months,  years,  did  I  ever  hear 
a  single  word  about  the  applications  of  logic.  I 

1  Remonstrance  au  consett  privf,  p.  24. 
8  Book  IV,  151. 


22  PETER   RAMUS 

had  faith  then  (the  scholar  ought  to  have  faith, 
according  to  Aristotle)  that  it  was  not  necessary  to 
trouble  myself  about  what  logic  is  and  what  its 
purpose  is,  but  that  it  concerned  itself  solely  with 
creating  a  motive  for  our  clamors  and  our  disputes. 
I  therefore  disputed  and  clamored  with  all  my  might. 
If  I  were  defending  in  class  a  thesis  according 
to  the  categories,  I  believed  it  my  duty  never  to 
yield  to  my  opponent,  were  he  one  hundred  times 
right,  but  to  seek  some  very  subtle  distinction,  in 
order  to  obscure  the  whole  issue.  On  the  other 
hand,  were  I  disputant,  all  my  care  and  efforts 
tended  not  to  enlighten  my  opponent,  but  to  beat 
him  by  some  argument,  good  or  bad :  even  so  had  I 
been  taught  and  directed.  The  categories  of  Aris- 
totle were  like  a  ball  that  we  give  children  to  play 
with,  and  that  it  was  necessary  to  get  back  by  our 
clamors  when  we  had  lost  it.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  should  get  it,  we  should  not  through  any  outcry 
allow  it  to  be  recovered.  I  was  then  persuaded  that 
all  dialectic  reduced  itself  to  disputing  with  loud 
and  vigorous  cries. 

"  Perhaps  you  will  ask  me  when  and  how  I  finally 
stumbled  upon  a  better  method.  I  will  tell  you 
freely  and  candidly,  in  order  that,  if  the  remedy  that 


THE   BREACH   WITH   ARISTOTLE  23 

rescued  me  may  be  useful  in  your  situation,  you 
may  use  it  liberally.  I  do  not  seek  at  all  to  convince 
you  by  argument ;  I  only  wish  to  explain  simply  and 
directly  how  I  emerged  from  that  darkness.  ^(rAfter 
having  devoted  three  years  and  six  months  to  scholas- 
tic philosophy,  according  to  the  rules  of  our  university ; 
after  having  read,  discussed,  and  meditated  on  the 
various  treatises  of  the  Organon  (for  of  all  the  books 
of  Aristotle  those  especially  which  treated  of  dialectic 
were  read  and  reread  during  the  course  of  three 
years) ;  even  after,  I  say,  having  put  in  all  that  tune, 
reckoning  up  the  years  completely  occupied  by  the 
study  of  the  scholastic  arts,  I  sought  to  learn  to 
what  end  I  could,  as  a  consequence,  apply  the  knowl- 
edge I  had  acquired  with  so  much  toil  and  fatigue. 

I  soon  perceived  that  all  this  dialectic  had  not  ren- 

r  j 

dered  me  more  learned  in  history  and  the  knowledge 

of  antiquity,   nor   more   skillful  in  eloquence,  nor  I 
a  better  poet,  nor  wiser  in  anything.^ Ah,  what  a* 
stupefaction,  what  a  grief !    How  I  did  accuse  my 
deficiencies !    How  I  did  deplore  the  misfortune  of 
my  destiny,  the  barrenness  of  a  mind  that  after  so 
much  labor  could  not  gather  or  even  perceive  the 
fruits  of  that   wisdom  which  was   alleged   to  be 
found  so  abundantly  in  the  dialectic  of  Aristotle  ! 


24  PETER   RAMUS 

"I  finally  came  upon  a  book  of  Galen  on  the 
thoughts  of  Hippocrates  and  Plato.1  That  parallel  of 
Plato  with  Hippocrates  furnished  me  much  enjoy- 
ment, but  it  inspired  me  with  a  much  greater  desire 
to  read  all  the  dialogues  of  Plato  which  treated  of 
dialectic.  Then  it  was,  to  speak  the  truth,  that  I 
found  the  haven  so  long  desired.  .  .  .  That  which  I 
especially  enjoyed  and  even  loved  in  Plato  was  the 
method  by  which  Socrates  refuted  false  opinions, 
attempting  first  of  all  to  raise  his  hearers  above  the 
senses,  prejudices,  and  traditions  of  men,  in  order 
to  lead  them  to  their  own  natural  sense  of  right  and 
liberty  of  judgment.  For  it  appeared  to  him  insane 
that  a  philosopher  should  allow  himself  to  act 
according  to  the  opinions  of  the  masses,  which  for 
the  most  part  are  false  and  deceitful,  rather  than 


1  Ramus  refers  to  the  Hepl  rfav  'iTTTroKparovs  *ai 
8oy/«£Tto>v.  See  Galeni  Opera  (Kuhn  ed.),  V,  181  ff.  Plato  believed 
that  the  nature  of  the  mind  could  be  discovered  by  a  method 
similar  to  that  by  which  Hippocrates  investigated  the  nature  of 
the  body.  Probably  Ramus  was  little  acquainted  with  Greek  at 
the  time,  and  was  indebted  for  his  knowledge  to  a  Latin  trans- 
lation of  Galen  by  Theodoric  Gerard,  which  Sturm  had  published. 
See  Guggenheim,  BeUriige  zur  Biographic  des  Ramus,  p.  141. 
Ramus  later  admitted  this,  as  we  find  from  the  preface  to  his 
Proeme  des  Mathtmatiques  (1567)  and  at  the  beginning  of  his 
Schola  in  liberates  artes  (1569). 


THE   BREACH   WITH   ARISTOTLE  25 

apply  himself  to  ascertaining  only  the  facts  and  their 
true  causes.  In  short,  I  began  to  say  to  myself  (I 
should  have  hesitated  to  say  it  to  another) :  'Well, 
what  hinders  me  from  '  socratizing '  a  little,  and 
examining,  independently  of  the  authority  of  Aris- 
totle, whether  that  doctrine  of  his  dialectic  is  the 
most  true  and  useful  ?  Perhaps  that  philosopher  has 
abused  us  by  his  authority,  and  in  that  case,  I  need 
not  have  been  surprised  at  having  studied  his  books 
without  deriving  any  profit  from  them,  when  they 
contained  none.  .  .  .  And  what  if  that  whole  doc- 
trine should  prove  a  delusion  ? ' ' 

Thus  Ramus  gradually  broke  with  the  scholastic 
philosophy  and  the  Aristotelianism  of  the  day.    But, 
owing  to  his  impulsive  nature  and  the  impetuosity 
of  youth,  as  well  as  to  the  immoderate  and  con- 
troversial  temper  of  the  times,  Ramus,  once  c 
vinced,  pushed  his  opposition  to  an  extreme,  aridy 
became   straightway  an  ardent   reformer,   if  not   a/ 
revolutionist.     He  attacked  without  discretion  the 
great  idol  of  the  day,  whose  word  was  revered  as  that 
of  an  oracle  and  upon  the  basis  of  whose  dialectic 
the  Church  had  built  her  doctrine.1     But  his  very 

1  Aristotle  several  times  narrowly  escaped  being  canonized  in 
the  Middle  Ages.    See  Cousin,  Cours,  2  serie,  t.  II,  p.  240. 


26  PETER   RAMUS 

vehemence  attracted  attention  and  enlisted  a  large 
number  of  partisans.  His  first  opportunity  for  a 
public  combat  came  with  his  master's  examination 
in  I536,1  when  he  formulated  as  his  subject  for  dis- 
putation the  audacious  proposition:  "All  that 
Aristotle  has  said  is  false."2  In  developing  his 
subject,  he  maintained  in  the  first  place  that  the 
writings  attributed  to  Aristotle  were  spurious,  and 
secondly  that  they  contained  only  errors.3  His 
disputants,  the  judges,  were  impaled  on  the  horns  of 
a  dilemma,  since  they  could  not,  as  was  their  wont, 
appeal  to  the  authority  of  Aristotle  without  begging 
the  question.  They  were  unable  to  make  any  head- 
way against  the  youthful  disputant.  As  a  result, 
after  assailing  his  thesis  for  a  whole  day  and  having 
their  arguments  refuted  with  great  spirit,  subtlety, 
and  directness,  they  were  at  length  obliged  to  admit 
the  candidate  to  the  degree  with  honors. 

This  paradox  of  the  young  scholar  startled  all 
the  universities  of  France,  and  quickly  spread  to 
Germany,  Switzerland,  and  Italy.  The  academic 
world  stood  aghast  at  his  audacity.  If  Ramus  were 

1  According  to  custom,  this  probably  occurred  in  Lent. 

2  Qucecumque  ab  Aristotele  dicta  essent,  commentitia  esse. 

3  Freigius,  op.  cit.,  pp.  9  ff. 


THE  BREACH   WITH   ARISTOTLE  27 

right,  all  the  universities  of  Europe  were  wrong.  He 
was  denounced  by  many  scholars  as  an  ingrate  on 
the  ground  that  he  had  used  the  weapons  supplied 
by  Aristotle  to  attack  the  donor  himself.  To  this 
he  replied  in  the  very  words  of  Aristotle,  when  that 
philosopher  declared  that  he  preferred  the  truth 
even  to  his  master,  Plato:  "Had  my  own  father 
promulgated  those  errors,  my  attack  should  not 
lack  force  and  persistency.  The  truth  is  more 
precious  and  dear  to  me  than  my  father  himself, 
and  I  shall  hold  myself  guilty  to  let  my  regard  for 
a  single  person  stand  in  the  way  of  all." 1 

Thus  when  barely  twenty-one,  the  son  of  a  poor 
widow  became  one  of  the  most  striking  figures 
within  the  realm  of  intellect.  The  attainment  of 
his  degree  entitled  him  literally  to  become  a  'master ' 
in  the  university,  and  he  began  his  labors  at  the 
College  of  the  Mans2  under  the  auspices  of  Jean 
Hennuyer.  This  scholar,  who  had  been  his  teacher 
in  philosophy  at  the  College  of  Navarre,  was  prob- 
ably likewise  a  professor  at  Mans,3  and  Ramus  may 
have  been  substituting  for  him.  At  any  rate,  he 

1  Aristotelica  Animadversiones,  fol.  73-75. 

2  See  pp.  13  £. 

»  See  Du  Boulay,  Hist,  de  I' Univ.  de  Paris,  t.  VI,  952. 


28  PETER   RAMUS 

did  not  stay  here  long,  but  undertook  to  start  at  the 
little  college  of  Ave  Maria,  in  opposition  to  the 
Aristotelians,  an  education  more  in  conformity  with 
his  own  ideal.  He  associated  with  himself  in  this 
endeavor  Omer  Talon  of  Beauvais,  an  able  professor 
of  rhetoric,  who  ever  afterward  remained  a  close 
friend  and  enthusiastic  supporter  of  his  educational 
reforms,  and  Barthelemy  Alexandre  of  Champagne, 
a  noted  Greek  scholar,  who  could  teach  the  Hellenic 
philosophers  and  orators  in  the  original. 

Here,  for  the  first  tune  in  any  college  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Paris,  Greek  and  Latin  authors  were  read  at 
the  same  time,  and  the  study  of  'eloquence,'  or  classi- 
cal literature,  was  joined  with  that  of  philosophy, 
and  of  the  poets  with  the  orators.  His  plan  for 
enlarging  the  breadth  and  culture  of  higher  instruc- 
tion  proved  interesting,  stimulating,  and  almost 
dramatic.  The  students  flocked  to  hear  Ramus, 
whose  reputation  as  an  orator  was  established  the 
first  day.  This  remarkable  success  he  followed  up  by 
planning  to  reform  the  work  of  the  university  in 
general  and  the  arts  faculty  in  particular.  He 
put  in  several  years  forgetting  much  of  what  he  had 
learned  at  the  College  of  Navarre  and  in  recon- 
structing all  the  liberal  arts.  He  especially  en- 


THE    BREACH   WITH   ARISTOTLE  2p 

deavored  to  continue  his  reform  in  dialectic,  and 
foresaw  in  the  application  of  this  subject  to  the  other 
liberal  arts  the  keystone  to  the  entire  arch,  and  at 
that  point  he  centered  the  structure  opposed  to  Aris- 
totle and  the  medieval  philosophy  founded  upon 
him.  In  this  progressive  step  toward  real  human- 
istic study  and  fruitful  logic  he  probably  had  as 
guides  such  writings  as  the  Sapiens  (1522)  and 
De  Disciplinis  (1531)  of  Vives,1  wrhich  must  have 
been  well  known  to  him,  and  the  lectures  on  dialectic 
of  Sturm,1  who  had  just  completed  his  seven  years 
of  teaching  at  Paris.  The  masters  in  the  College 
of  Ave  Maria,  then,  made  their  lectures  attractive 
and  practical  by  seeking  illustrations  and  models  of 
the  operations  of  the  mind  in  the  classical  poets  and 
orators,  thus  verifying  in  an  interesting  way  the 
rules  of  logic  and  banishing  the  barren  disputes  that 
had  long  held  sway  at  the  university.  "As  the 
result  of  a  happy  thought,"  says  Ramus,2  "I  put 
forth  the  proposition  that  the  masters  of  the  uni- 
versity were  grievously  in  error  to  suppose  that  the 
liberal  arts  were  well  taught  in  making  of  them  mere 
interrogations  and  syllogisms,  and  that  the  whole 
of  this  sophistry  should  be  cast  aside  and  the 

1  See  p.  17.  2  Remonstrance  au  conseil  privt,  p.  25. 


30  PETER   RAMUS 

subjects  should  rather    explain    and    suggest  real 
usage." 

To  crystallize  this  position,  Ramus  in  1543  pub- 
lished in  Latin  two  epoch-making  books  on  logic, 
the  Divisions  or  Institutions  of  Dialectic1  and  the 
Animadversions  on  Aristotle?  In  the  former  work 
he  stated  dogmatically  a  number  of  elementary 
principles  of  logic  in  terse  and  elegant  language. 
This  treatise,  however,  had  in  it  little  that  was  con- 
troversial, with  the  exception  of  the  brief  introduc- 
tion, but  the  latter  work  consisted  in  a  fierce 
onslaught  upon  Aristotle,  filled  with  the  bitter 
invective  that  was  characteristic  of  the  age  and  his 
own  impulsiveness.  It  was  most  unfair  and  indis- 
creet in  its  critical  analysis  of  the  great  logician, 
representing  him  as  a  'sophist,'  an  'impostor,' 
and  a  'sacrilegious  man,'  and  his  disciples  as  'bar- 
barians,' whose  disputes  were  barren  and  noisy. 
He  ridiculed  and  condemned  with  great  force  and 
eloquence  their  subtleties  and  follies  of  all  sorts. 
He  boldly  declared  himself  the  opponent  of  a  routine, 
and  the  apostle  of  freedom  of  thought,  and  he  held 
himself  ready  to  encounter  all  labors  and  dangers, 

1  Dialectics  partitiones  ad  Academiam  Parisiensem  (in  later  edi- 
tions called  Dialectics  institutiones). 

2  Aristotelicce  animadver stones. 


THE   BREACH   WITH   ARISTOTLE  31 

in  order  to  destroy  the  sophistry  of  his  opponents, 
even  to  the  extent  of  laying  down  his  life  for  the 
cause.1  Finally,  he  reiterated  the  famous  paradox 
of  his  master's  disputation  with  scarcely  any  modera- 
tion,2 and  discharged  a  fusillade  of  abuse  at  the 
effete  teachings  of  the  professors  in  the  faculty  of  arts. 
So  determined  an  attack  upon  the  Aristotelian 
citadel  could  no  longer  be  passed  over  unnoticed, 
and  the  Peripatetics  massed  themselves  for  battle. 
Ramus,  too,  seems  to  have  understood  fully  what 
the  consequences  of  his  treatises  were  likely  to  be. 
He  undertook  to  intrench  himself  behind  the  good 
will  of  the  king,  Francis  I,  to  whom  he  pre- 
sented a  handsome  copy  of  the  Divisions  of  Dialectic, 
together  with  a  eulogy  of  his  reign  and  wishes  for  his 
prosperity.3  With  a  similar  motive  he  dedicated  the 
Animadversions  to  two  former  college  mates,  both 
afterwards  cardinals,  Charles  of  Lorraine  and  Charles 
of  Bourbon,  and  appealed  to  their  kindness  of  heart, 

1  See  Animadversiones,  fol.  15  v. 

2  His  later  works  on  the  subject,  notably  the  Schola  dialectics, 
were  much  less  extreme  and  vehement,  and  were  directed  rather 
against  the  scholastic  interpretation  of  Aristotle  than  the  master 
himself. 

3  Waddington  (Ramus,  p.  37)  says  this  volume  is  in  the  Bib- 
liothkque  Imperiale  (now  Nalionale),  No.  6659,  of  the  Latin  manu- 
scripts, and  quotes  from  the  dedication  (pp.  421  ff.). 


32  PETER   RAMUS 

which  he  declared  had  often  been  experienced  by 
himself  and  had  been  much  praised  by  their  revered 
master,  Hennuyer.  While  these  precautions  were 
well  taken,  they  were  not  sufficient  to  withstand  the 
storm  that  immediately  arose  and  broke  over  the 
head  of  Ramus.  The  conservative  masters  of  the 
university,  perceiving  the  sympathy  of  the  students 
for  the  vigorous  reformer,  and  fearing  a  revolution, 
were  alarmed  and  enraged.  The  rector  of  the 
university,  Pierre  Galland,  principal  of  the  College 
of  Boncour,  especially  felt  himself  aggrieved,  and, 
while  taking  no  overt  step,  secretly  urged  two  well- 
known  masters  to  expose  the  fallacies  of  Ramus. 
These  men  were  Perion,  a  professor  of  theology,  who 
had  made  a  pretentious  and  inaccurate  translation 
of  Aristotle,  and  Govea,  a  conservative,  but  rather 
learned  and  witty  jurist.  The  arraignments  of 
Ramus,  which  they  were  only  too  eager  to  make, 
were  filled  with  pedantry  and  invective,  and  in- 
timated that  dire  calamities  were  in  store  for  the 
reformer,  should  he  not  repent  and  'make  his 
peace  with  honest  folk.' 1  Their  defense  of  Aristotle 
had  more  force  than  point,  and  the  writings  of  that 

1  As  sources,  see  (i)  Perionii  pro  Aristotele  in  Petmm  Ramum 
orationes  II  and  (2)     Hispanice  bibliotheca,  t.  II,  class.  VII,  pp.  300  f . 


THE   BREACH   WITH   ARISTOTLE  33 

philosopher,  with  their  austere  dignity,  would  have 
proved  by  themselves  a  more  weighty  answer  than 
these  violent  and  unjust  anathemas  of  his  dis- 
ciples. 

Galland,  however,  was  succeeded  the  following 
year1  by  Guillaume  de  Montuelle,  principal  of  the 
College  of  Beauvais,  who  acted  with  more  direct- 
ness in  the  matter.  He  at  once  presented  the 
two  offending  works  to  the  faculty  of  theology  for 
censure,  and  when  this  had  been  passed,  he  had  the 
university  ask  the  civic  authorities  to  suppress  the 
books.  Ramus  was  summoned  before  the  provost  of 
Paris  as  an  enemy  to  religion  and  the  public  peace 
and  a  corrupter  of  youth,  and  at  the  request  of 
Gov6a,  who  acted  as  the  university's  advocate,  the 
case  was  brought  before  the  Parlement2  of  Paris. 
Then,  since  the  procedure  of  this  tribunal  appeared 
too  deliberate  and  regular  to  satisfy  the  anger  of 
the  Aristotelians,  Galland  got  Pierre  du  Chastel, 

1  The  term  of  the  rector's  office  was  but  one  year. 

2  The  functions  of  this  body  are  not  to  be  confused  with  those 
of  a  parliament.     The  local  parlements,  of  which  that  of  Paris  was 
the  most  important,  were  primarily  higher  law  courts,  but,  in  addi- 
tion to  trying  cases,  they  claimed  the  right  to  register  or  disapprove 
the  decrees  of  the  king,  and  maintain  certain  other  legislative 
powers. 

D 


34  PETER   RAMUS 

bishop  of  Macon  and  a  close  friend  of  the  king,  to 
intervene  and  bring  the  complaint  to  the  royal  notice 
at  once.  Francis,  finding  the  growing  tempest  and 
uproar  unendurable  and  wishing  it  to  subside  as 
quickly  as  possible,  referred  the  case,  at  Du  Chastel's 
suggestion,  to  a  commission  of  five,  two  of  whom  were 
to  be  chosen  by  each  side  and  a  fifth  by  the  king. 
Ramus  succeeded  in  getting  two  talented  personal 
friends  to  act  for  him,  but,  although  their  arguments 
completely  vanquished  the  other  three  judges, 
who  were  zealous  Aristotelians,  they  were  overborne 
and  withdrew  from  the  farcical  trial  in  disgust. 
Sentence  was  then  pronounced  upon  the  defendant 
as  follows :  — 

"Our  most  Christian  king,  in  his  love  for  phil- 
osophy and  liberal  studies,  has  committed  to  us  the 
task  of  examining  the  book  which  P.  Ramus  has 
published  against  Aristotle  under  the  title  of  Animad- 
versions on  Aristotle  and  of  passing  judgment  upon 
it.  We  have  read  the  book  carefully  and  have 
examined  and  weighed  every  one  of  its  propositions 
and  have  come  to  this  decision :  Ramus  has  acted 
rashly,  arrogantly,  and  impudently,  in  undertaking 
to  condemn  and  impugn  the  art  of  logic,  which  has 
been  accepted  among  all  nations;  and  which  he 


THE    BREACH   WITH   ARISTOTLE  35 

himself  does  not  understand  at  all.  Moreover,  the 
reproaches  which  he  heaps  upon  Aristotle  are  of  such 
a  kind  as  to  exhibit  his  ignorance  and  stupidity,  as 
well  as  his  wickedness  and  bad  faith,  since  he  repre- 
hends many  of  the  truest  doctrines,  and  attributes 
much  to  Aristotle  that  this  philosopher  has  never 
held.  In  short,  his  book  contains  nothing  but 
fictions  and  scurrilous  slanders.  Wherefore,  we 
have  judged  that  it  is  to  the  best  interest  of  the 
republic  of  letters  that  this  book  be  suppressed  by  all 
possible  means,  and  that  his  other  book,  Institutions l 
of  Dialectic,  which  also  contains  many  statements 
that  are  untrue  and  falsely  attributed,  shall  be 
treated  likewise."  2 

Thus  not  only  was  the  Animadversions  not  granted 
a  fair  trial,  but  even  the  more  constructive  work  of 
Ramus  was  condemned  without  even  being  ex- 
amined, solely  because  it  was  by  the  same  author. 
The  king,  who  boasted  of  his  title  of  'father  of  let- 
ters,' was  swayed  by  the  clamors  and  confirmed  the 
unjust  decision  and  did  everything  possible  to  make 
it  effective.  In  his  decree,  after  giving  a  lengthy 

1  See  footnote  on  p.  30. 

2  The  original  text  is  given  in  Du  Boulay,  Hist,  de  I'Univ.  de  Paris, 
t.  VI,  p.  394- 


36  PETER   RAMUS 

account  of  the  trouble  that  had  disturbed  his  'dear 
and  beloved  daughter,  the  University  of  Paris,' *  and 
of  the  trial  that  had  ensued,  he  declares :  — 

"Beit  known  that  we  have  condemned,  suppressed, 
and  abolished  the  said  books,  and  made  prohibitions 
and  warnings  to  all  printers  and  booksellers  of  our 
kingdom,  fiefs,  domains,  and  seigniories,  and  to  all 
our  other  subjects  of  whatever  estate  and  condition, 
that  they  neither  print,  spread  abroad,  sell,  or  utter 
the  said  books,  hi  our  kingdom,  fiefs,  and  seigniories, 
under  pain  of  confiscation  of  their  books  or  of  corporal 
punishment.  And  likewise  to  the  said  Ramus  that 
he  neither  lecture  upon  said  books  nor  have  them 
written  or  copied  or  spread  abroad  in  any  manner, 
and  that  he  do  not  lecture  on  dialectic  or  philosophy 
of  any  sort  whatsoever,  without  our  express  per- 
mission, and  also  he  no  longer  use  such  slanders  and 
invectives  against  Aristotle  or  other  ancient  authors 
received  and  approved,  or  against  our  said  daughter, 
the  university,  under  the  penalties  above  mentioned. 
So  we  commend  and  decree  to  our  provost  of  Paris, 

1  Lafille  ainee  du  roi  de  France,  'the  eldest  daughter  of  the  king 
of  France,'  was  the  name  given  in  1515  by  Francis  I  to  the  Univer- 
sity of  Paris  and  generally  used  after  that.  See  Pasquier,  Recherches 
de  la  France,  p.  811. 


THE   BREACH   WITH  ARISTOTLE  37 

that  he  may  cause  the  present  ordinance  and  judg- 
ment to  be  executed." 1 

The  edict  of  the  king  was  registered  by  the  parle- 
ment  without  opposition,  and  was  published  by 
trumpet  and  posted  in  French  and  Latin  in  all  parts  of 
the  city.  It  was  dispatched  throughout  France,  and 
sent  to  foreign  towns  and  universities  to  vindicate 
the  orthodoxy  of  Paris.  It  was  received  by  the 
conservatives  of  the  university  with  transports  of 
joy.  The  obnoxious  books  were  burnt  hi  front  of 
the  College  of  Cambrai  by  one  of  the  biased  judges, 
and  the  Peripatetics  indulged  in  a  greater  celebration 
than  would  ordinarily  be  held  after  a  military 
victory.2  Some  of  his  opponents,  however,  regretted 
that  the  king  had  let  Ramus  off  with  so  light  a  penalty, 
and  insisted  that  he  should  have  been  exiled  or  sent  to 
the  galleys  as  a  common  malefactor.3  Ramus,  how- 
ever, could  do  nothing  except  submit  to  these  indig- 

1  Given  in  full  in  Du  Boulay,  op.  cit.,  t.VI,  p.  657 ;  Charpentier, 
Ad  expositionem  disputationis  demethodo  Responsio;  and  La  Choix 
du  Maine,  Bibliotheques  Francoises  under  Pierre  de  la  Ramie; 
Niceron,  Memoires,  XIII. 

2  This  was  the  testimony  given  by  Genebrard  in  his  eulogy  at 
the  funeral  of  Danes,  the  judge  who  burnt  the  book  of  Ramus. 
See  Vie,  Eloges,  et  Opuscules  de  Pierre  Danes.     (Paris,  1871,  p.  90.) 

3  See  Charpentier,  Animadversiones  in  Dialecticarum  Institutions 
P.  Kami,  fol.  13  r. 


38  PETER   RAMTJS 

nities  and  conceal  his  resentment  as  much  as  pos- 
sible. Later  he  declared  with  his  characteristic 
philosophy :  — 

"  I  had  undertaken  to  make  known  the  principles 
of  Socrates,  and  found  that  I  had  drawn  upon  my- 
self the  same  sort  of  calamity  as  that  which  over- 
whelmed him.  For  a  complete  resemblance  my  case 
lacked  only  the  hemlock."  1 

Nevertheless,  Ramus  seems  not  to  have  been  alto- 
gether silenced.  It  was  only  philosophy  that  he  was 
forbidden  to  teach,  and  in  the  very  year  of  his  con- 
viction (1544)  we  find  him  at  work  as  usual  with 
Talon  and  Alexandre  at  their  college.2  While  he 
could  not  deal  with  logic  or  any  part  of  philosophy, 
and  confined  himself  entirely  to  the  classics  and 
mathematics,3  he  still  defended  the  union  of  literary 
studies  with  philosophy.  Moreover,  Talon  was  not 
in  the  least  intimidated,  and  publicly  announced 

1  Scholar  mathematical^  \.  Ill,  p.  74. 

2  There  are  still  preserved  the  addresses  of  the  three  colleagues 
to  their  students  in  November,  —  Tres  orationes  a  tribus  liberalism 
disciplinarum  professoribus,  Petro  Ramo,   Aiidomaro  Talao,  Bar- 
tholomcBo  Alexandra,  Lutetia  in  gymnasia  Mariano  habitat. 

3  During  this  period  he  made  his  first  Latin  translation  of  Euclid, 
which  he  anonymously  dedicated  to  his  patron,  the  Cardinal  of 
Lorraine.     More  will  be  heard  of  his  mathematical  publications 
later  on. 


THE    BREACH    WITH    ARISTOTLE  39 

his  complete  agreement  with  the  position  taken  by 
Ramus  and  his  intention  to  rescue  philosophy  from 
the  darkness  in  which  it  was  groping.  He  praised  the 
Animadversions  most  heartily  and  announced  that 
he  would  produce  a  similar  work  on  rhetoric.1 

The  next  year  an  even  more  favorable  opportun- 
ity presented  itself  to  the  two  reformers.  Ramus 
was  invited  by  Lesage,  the  aged  principal  of  the 
College  of  Presles,  to  take  charge  of  this  historic 
school.2  The  college  was  badly  run  down  in  finances 
and  attendance,  but,  through  the  eloquence  and  un- 
proved management  of  Ramus,  it  shortly  became 
one  of  the  best.3^  Here,  with  the  assistance  of  Talon, 
who  soon  followed  him  to  Presles,  Ramus  continued 
to  introduce  the  same  reforms  and  even  to  push 
them  further.  He  had  the  temerity  to  announce  as 
the  subject  of  his  first  lectures  that  passage  of  The 
Republic  of  Cicero  that  treats  of  Platonic  philosophy, 
and,  in  spite  of  the  ban  upon  his  lecturing  upon  the 
subject,  he  commented  without  reserve,  on  the  ground 
of  teaching  the  classics  or  'eloquence,'  upon  the 

1  Collectan.  pr&jat.,  epist.  (1577),  pp.  19  ff- 

2  It  was  founded  in  1314  by  Raoul  de  Presles,  a  secretary  of 
Philip   the   Fair,  according   to   Waddington.     Farrington,  from 
Jourdain  and  Chauvin,  estimates  1322  as  the  date. 

3  See  Nicholas  of  Nancel,  Rami  vita,  p.  19. 


40  PETER   RAMUS 

Dream  of  Scipio.1  Moreover,  the  two  friends  again 
taught  the  Latin  and  Greek  authors  in  the  same  class, 
and  joined  the  study  of  'eloquence'  with  that  of 
philosophy.  While  not  nominally  permitted  to  teach 
philosophy  himself,  Ramus  still  insisted  upon  the  need 
of  the  union  of  the  two  lines  of  study,  and  in  October, 
1546,  delivered  his  oration  upon  the  subject.2  To 
carry  out  this  idea  and  yet  live  within  the  interdict, 
it  was  arranged  that  Talon  should  give  a  course  on 
philosophy  in  the  morning,  while  Ramus  lectured 
in  the  afternoon  upon  rhetoric,  illustrating  through 
the  poets,  orators,  and  other  authors  the  usage  and 
application  of  the  principles  of  logic.  This  double 
system  of  lectures  was  in  itself  a  startling  innovation, 
but  Ramus  undertook  to  show  that  it  was  in  keeping 
with  the  intention  and  example  of  Aristotle  and  with 
the  practice  at  the  College  of  France,3  and  expressed 
the  hope  that  the  plan  might  become  general  in  the 
university  colleges  also. 

Such  vitality  and  attractiveness  in  instruction  not 
only  seemed  destructive  of  the  'arts'  traditions,  but 
soon  lured  students  in  large  numbers  away  from  all 

1  His  Somnium  Scipionis  ex  libra  sexto  Ciceronis  de  Republica 
Petri  Kami  pralectionibus  explicatum  was  published  in  1546. 

2  Oratio  de  studiis  philosophies  et  eloquenlics  conjugendis. 

3  See  pp.  4  and  15  f. 


THE   BREACH  WITH  ARISTOTLE  41 

the  other  colleges.  This  was  a  constant  source  of 
grievance  to  the  conservatives,  and,  failing  in  their 
attempt  to  make  trouble  between  Ramus  and  the 
retired  principal,  Lesage,1  they  constantly  complained 
officially  of  this  'subversion  of  the  College  of  Presles.'2 
On  several  occasions  the  rectors  felt  called  upon  to 
investigate,  and  once  Ramus  was  haled  before  the 
parlement  by  Galland  for  this  revolutionary  offense, 
but  through  the  influence  of  his  patron,  Charles  of 
Lorraine,  he  was  acquitted.3  Moreover,  by  the 
fortunate  circumstance  of  the  succession  of  Henry  II 
to  the  throne  in  1547,  the  power  of  this  cardinal 
protector,  who  had  been  the  preceptor  of  the  new 
monarch,  was  greatly  increased,  and  almost  his 
first  act  was  to  procure  from  the  king  an  abrogation 
of  the  edict  against  Ramus.  The  ecclesiastical  favor- 
ite showed  the  king  the  necessity  to  philosophy  of 
freedom  in  thinking  and  of  the  right  to  adopt  or 
reject  without  limitation  the  opinions  of  Plato, 
Aristotle,  or  any  other  thinker.  The  king  promptly 

1  Banosius,  pp.  9  f. ;  Nancel,  p.  18.    The  accusation  of  having 
forced  out  the  old  principal  was  repeated  a  decade  later  by  his  worst 
enemy,  Charpentier  (Animadversiones  adversus  P.  Ramum,  1555, 
fol.  4  v.,  et  alibi). 

2  See  Du  Boulay,  op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  p.  399.    Ramus  was  repeatedly 
denominated  turbator  colkgii  Pradlei. 

1  Ramus,  Pro  phil.  discipline  (in  Cottectan.  prcefat.,  p.  310). 


42  PETER   RAMUS 

canceled  the  interdict  and  the  parlement  registered 
his  decision.  Thus,  says  Ramus,  "  the  true  God  who 
knows  to  what  end  he  has  produced  his  creatures, 
reserved  the  conclusion  of  my  case  for  the  good  King 
Henry,  who  having  heard  the  controversy  recounted, 
unbound  my  tongue  and  hands,  and  gave  me  the 
right  and  power  to  pursue  my  studies."  l 

This  gave  Ramus  a  latitude  in  pursuing  his  studies 
and  literary  work  that  he  was  not  slow  to  utilize.  In 
the  Academy  (i.e.  University)  of  Talon  he  had  the 
story  of  his  persecutions  narrated,  and  through  the 
offices  of  the  same  friend  there  were  published  new 
editions  of  the  two  condemned  books  with  many 
modifications  and  additions.  Ramus  himself  within 
a  few  years  collected  his  commentaries  on  the  letters 
of  Plato  and  on  the  orations  and  rhetorical  works  of 
Cicero  and  Quintilian  in  eight  or  ten  publications,2 
dedicating  most  of  them  to  his  powerful  patron,  the 

1  See  Remonstrance  au  conseil  prive  (1567),  p.  25. 

2  Brutincp  quaestiones  in  Oratorem  Ciccrwis.   1547    and    1549; 
Rhetorics  distinctiones  (in  Quintilianum] ,  1549;  Platonis  epistolat 
a  Petro  Ramo  latina  factce,  et  dialeclicis  rerum  summis  breviter 
exposita,  1549;  M.  T.  Ciceronis  dc  fate  liber,  1550;  M.  T.  Cice^ 
ronis  epistola  nona  ad  P.  Lenlulum  dialecticis  rerum  summis  breviter 
illustrata,  1550;  M.  T.  Ciceronis  pro  Caio  Rubirio  perduellionis  re& 
oratio,  1551 ;  Pralectiones  in  librum  I  Ciceronis  de  legibus,  1552; 
M.  T.  Ciceronis  de  lege  agraria,  1552. 


xWvjn^ 


THE   BREACH    WITH   ARISTOTLE  43 

cardinal.  In  these  writings  Ramus  called  for  a 
more  humanistic  and  methodical  treatment  of 
rhetoric,  and  even  ventured  to  criticize  Cicero  and 
Quintilian.  This  insurgency  precipitated  new  at- 
tacks by  the  conservatives.  His  old  opponent  Perion, 
who  had  attacked  the  Animadversions,  now  took  up 
the  cudgels  as  vigorously  in  defense  of  Cicero.  In 
the  dedication  of  his  work  to  Du  Chastel,  who  had 
brought  the  former  case  before  the  king,  he  virtuously 
declares:  "You  know  that  I  defended  Aristotle 
against  Ramus  four  years  ago  in  a  lengthy  speech  and 
I  now  believe  that  I  cannot  give  up  Cicero,  the  father 
of  Roman  eloquence,  to  him  without  a  defense."  1 
And  addressing  the  professors  of  all  faculties,  he 
recalls  his  former  predictions  and  the  threat  of 
Ramus  to  reform  all  the  arts,  and  "not  to  stop 
until  logic  has  been  entirely  delivered  from  the  dark- 
ness of  Aristotle  and  it  has  been  shown  how  it  ought 
to  be  applied  to  all  sciences."  Perion,  therefore, 
appeals  in  alarm  to  his  fellow-masters  against 
"Ramus,  who  is  preparing  to  reject  Hippocrates 
and  Galen,  Euclid  and  Archimedes,  and  to  declare 
that  you  are  ignorant  of  medicine,  geometry,  and 

1  Pro  Ciceronis  Oratore  contra  Petrum  Ramum  oratio. 

2  Preface  to  the  Platonis  epistola  laiina  factce. 


44  PETER   RAMUS 

astronomy,"  and  beseeches  all  "who  cherish  Cicero 
as  the  father  of  eloquence  to  resist  Ramus,  who 
repudiates  skill  and  judgment."1  This  absurd  out- 
burst he  followed  by  reprinting  his  former  speeches  in 
defense  of  Aristotle  against  the  Animadversions.2 

But  this  excited  response  was  tame  in  comparison 
with  the  invective  that  was  heaped  upon  Ramus 
because  of  his  criticism  of  Quintilian.  Galland,  who 
had  stirred  up  much  of  the  fury  over  the  Animadver- 
sions, was  quite  as  indignant  at  the  attack  of  a  pro- 
fessor of  rhetoric  upon  Quintilian  as  at  a  logician 
for  a  criticism  of  Aristotle.  In  the  dedication  of  his 
edition  of  Quintilian3  to  DuChastel,  he  assails  Ramus 
as  'the  corrupter  of  youth'  and  as  a  man  guilty  of 
nearly  all  the  vices  and  crimes  in  the  calendar. 
While  Ramus  followed  his  custom  of  not  replying  to 
these  anathemas,  the  whole  discussion  seems  to 
have  reached  such  absurd  proportions  as  to  amuse 
many  outside  the  university  circle,  and  to  be  of 
enough  moment  to  attract  the  humor  of  the  satirist, 
Rabelais,  and  the  poet,  Du  Bellay.  Much  fun  is 
poked  at  this  Petromachy  or  '  war  of  the  Peters, '  and 
various  changes  are  rung  on  the  easy  puns  upon 

1  Pe'rion,  Pro  Ciceronis  Orator e,  fol.  3. 

2  See  pp.  32  f.  3  Paris,  1549. 


THE   BREACH    WITH   ARISTOTLE  45 

Peter  (' rock') ,  Ramus  ('branch'),  and  Gotland  ('gal- 
lant').1 

In  fact,  this  whole  '  tempest  in  a  teapot '  might 
have  subsided  through  ridicule,  had  it  not  been  for 
the  entry  of  a  new  and  more  vigorous  champion  into 
the  lists  against  Ramus.  This  was  Jacques  Char- 
pentier  or  '  Carpentarius,'  a  professor  in  the  College 
of  Boncour  and  a  former  pupil  of  Galland,  who  re- 
mained until  death  the  vicious  and  implacable  enemy 
of  Ramus.  He  came  of  a  rich  and  well-known  family 
with  many  powerful  patrons,  especially  among  the 
clergy,  and  he  had  at  the  age  of  twenty-five  manipu- 
lated himself  into  the  rectorship  of  the  university. 
Thinking  to  signalize  his  induction  into  office  by  a 
popular  stroke,  and  urged  perhaps  by  Galland,  he 
began  by  bringing,  in  the  name  of  the  University, 
trumped-up  charges  against  Ramus  and  accusing  him 
of  violations  of  the  rules.  He  declared  in  particular 
that  the  professors  of  the  College  of  Presles,  contrary 
to  university  statute,  expounded  the  poets  and  ora- 
tors, instead  of  confining  themselves  to  philosophy. 
Then,  without  any  investigation  of  the  teaching  or  any 
defense  from  Ramus,  in  a  packed  meeting  of  his  cabi- 

1  Rabelais,  Pantagruel,  1.  IV,  Prologue ;  Du  Bellay,  Satyre  de 
Maistre  Pierre  Cuignet  sur  la  Petromachie  de  VUniversite  de  Paris;  etc. 


46  PETER   RAMUS 

net,  he  had  the  students  of  that  college  debarred  from 
the  degrees  and  privileges  of  the  university.  A  sharp 
controversy  followed,  in  which  Carpentarius  accused 
Ramus  of  treason  to  the  university.1  And  the  latter 
was  convicted  by  a  biased  commission  of  six  selected 
from  the  higher  faculties.  An  appeal  was  had  to  the 
parlement,  and  once  more  Ramus  was  given  his 
rights  through  the  influence  of  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine. 
The  usual  slow  procedure  was  somewhat  expedited, 
and  the  vigorous  defense  made  by  Ramus  for  aca- 
demic freedom  in  interpreting  Aristotle  and  other 
authors  and  his  protest  against  the  tyrannical  rules 
and  abuses  of  the  university  won  him  from  fair- 
minded  judges  a  favorable  verdict.  Although  the 
University  custom  was  sustained  by  requiring 
the  reformer  to  explain  the  regular  authors  in  the 
way  prescribed  by  the  statutes,  he  was  permitted 
upon  holidays,  feast  days,  Sundays,  and  such  hours 
as  were  left  open  by  the  rules,  to  teach  whatever 
authors  he  chose  and  as  freely  as  he  liked.  This 
amounted  to  giving  him  nearly  two  thirds  of  the  year 
to  interpret  as  he  wished. 

1  The  response  of  Ramus  to  this  charge  is  embodied  in  his  Pro 
pkilosophica    Parisiensis  academice  discipline  oratio,  which  he  de 
livered  in  1551. 


THE    BREACH    WITH   ARISTOTLE  47 

But  to  prevent  any  recurrence  of  this  chicanery 
and  persecution,  the  cardinal  now  persuaded  the 
king  to  establish  a  new  chair  of  Eloquence  and 
Philosophy  at  the  College  of  France,  and  appoint 
Ramus  to  the  position.  This  step  was  taken,  and, 
while  as  principal  of  the  College  of  Presles,  Ramus 
was  still  amenable  to  the  University,  as  lecturer 
at  the  Royal  College  he  became  dependent  only 
upon  the  king.  He  was  thus  afforded  an  unwonted 
freedom  to  develop  his  reforms,  and  the  hostility 
and  envy  of  the  Aristotelians  and  conservatives  was 
for  a  brief  space  estopped. 


PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE 

RAMUS  began  his  new  duties  in  the  fall  of  1551. 
Although  only  thirty-six,  his  fame  was  widespread. 
The  virulence  of  his  enemies  and  the  stubborn 
opposition  of  the  conservatives,  quite  as  much  as 
his  own  brilliance  and  the  worth  of  his  reforms,  had 
centered  the  attention  of  the  intellectual  world 
upon  him.  His  opening  address  at  the  College  of 
France  was  attended  by  many  masters  of  the 
university,  members  of  the  parlement,  higher  clergy, 
and  persons  in  all  classes  to  the  number  of  two 
thousand.1  The  importance  of  the  occasion  as  a 
crisis  in  his  career  and  the  eloquence  of  the  orator 
will  perhaps  justify  quoting  this  inaugural  speech2 
at  some  length :  — 

"There  are  two  things,  my  hearers,  which  at  the 

^anosius,  p.  10;  Nancel,  p.  20;  Zwinger,  Theatrum  human® 
vita,  p.  3697,  col.  b. 

2  This  inaugural  address  (Oratio  initio  sua.  professionis  habita) 
was  published  the  same  year  and  is  still  extant. 

48 


EROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE        49 

beginning  of  my  professorship  every  one  will  ex- 
pect  from  me ;  in  the  first  place,  that  I  express  my 
thanks  to  those  through  whom  I  have  been  chosen  for 
this  position;  in  the  second  place,  that  I  explain 
to  you  the  reason  for  my  appointment  to  the  office. 
On  the  6th  of  August,  when  Charles,  Cardinal  of 
Lorraine,  brought  the  case  of  my  teaching  to  the 
notice  of  King  Henry,  it  pleased  the  king  that  I 
should  be  among  the  number  and  body  of  the  royal 
professors,  and  that,  as  I  have  done  from  the  begin- 
ning, I  should  teach  '  eloquence '  at  the  same  tune 
with  philosophy,  and  he  announced  that  decision 
to  me  in  an  epistle  couched  in  terms  of  special 
honor.  Wherefore,  I  am  exceedingly  grateful  to 
Henry  of  Valois,  most  Christian  of  kings,  and  shall  be 
as  long  as  life  endures.  For,  my  hearers,  if  a  father 
with  helpless  children  should  find  silver,  gold,  and 
great  and  precious  wealth  that  had  been  left  by  his 
ancestors,  and  yet  could  not  on  account  of  the  rocks 
and  the  roughness  of  the  ground  either  carry  it  home 
or  share  it  with  his  children;  and  at  length  some 
Hercules,  having  pitied  the  wretched  fortune  of  the 
father,  should  rid  the  place  of  rocks  and  roughness, 
and  should  make  it  quite  possible  for  him  to  take 
it  away,  share,  and  enjoy  it,  would  not  that  happy 


5O  PETER   RAMUS 

father  exult  with  exceeding  great  joy  ?    What  thanks 
he  would  give  to  that  Hercules  ! 

"  But  I  was  just  such  a  wretched  father  for  years. 
Many  pupils  had  been  committed  to  my  care  and 
affection,  and  the  great  and  precious  wealth  of 
'  eloquence  '  and  philosophy  I  saw  had  been  left  as  an 
inheritance  in  the  works  of  the  ancient  orators,  poets, 
and  philosophers,  but  overlooked  through  the  care- 
lessness of  the  heirs.  And  when  I  desired  to  collect 
it  rationally  and  systematically,  to  use  it  suitably  in 
life,  and  share  it  with  my  pupils,  incredibly  harsh 
conditions  hindered  and  opposed  my  efforts.  Nay, 
even  my  hands  were  fettered,  lest  I  should  take  it, 
and  my  lips  were  sealed,  lest  I  tell  some  one  of  it,  and 
I  was  forbidden  to  disclose  anything  by  speech  or 
writing.  Meanwhile,  King  Henry,  a  Gallic  Hercules, 
as  it  were,  came  to  aid  me  in  my  distress,  and,  four 
years  ago,  at  the  request  of  Charles,  Cardinal  of 
Lorraine,  unloosed  my  hands  and  tongue,  and  gave 
me  the  power  of  teaching,  practicing,  and  illustrat- 
ing '  eloquence '  and  philosophy.  And  within  the  last 
few  days,  when  he  perceived  that  the  old  burdens 
were  being  renewed  and  made  heavier,  he  even  more 
bountifully  and  magnificently  revealed  his  kindness 
and  decreed  that  my  labors  should  be  not  only 


PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE        51 

unfettered,  but  even  honored  with  a  royal  stipend. 
Wherefore,  O  Henry,  most  Christian  king,  should  I 
say  that  I  owe  the  life  within  this  body  to  thee,  who 
dost  free,  support,  and  honor  me,  I  should  put  it 
mildly.  I  owe  to  thee  that  which  is  far  dearer  than 
my  body  and  life,  —  my  soul,  whose  labors  and  vigils 
are  nourished  and  live  through  thy  benefits,  and,  I 
hope,  will  be  nourished  and  live  to  herald  thy  praise 
to  future  ages.  .  .  . 

"  The  second  place  for  thanks,  my  hearers,  is  due  to 
Charles,  Cardinal  of  Lorraine,  who,  as  soon  as  he 
knew  my  straits,  offered  to  become  my  patron  and 
protector,  —  a  real  Maecenas  in  his  love  of  letters 
and  in  his  zeal  and  aid  in  relieving  virtue.  Nor 
was  he  attracted  by  my  meager  ability  so  much  as 
induced  by  the  remarkable  excellence  of  his  own 
nature  and  training.  I  declare  the  truth,  without  fear 
of  contradiction,  —  since  the  memory  of  very  many 
still  living  and  present  will  bear  witness  and  give 
credence  to  my  speech,  —  when  I  say  that  Charles 
of  Lorraine  from  early  years  was  so  greatly  devoted 
to  learning  and  virtue  that  all  of  us  who  knew  him 
admired  the  eager  mind  of  the  youth.  His  atten- 
tion hi  listening  to  the  master,  his  meditation  and 
study  of  what  had  been  taught,  his  pains  in  imitat- 


52  PETER  RAMUS 

ing  the  example  of  the  author  expounded,  and  his 
efforts  in  practicing  every  variety  of  speaking  and 
writing  were  of  the  very  highest.  Only  recently  I 
have  read  an  elegy  of  most  brilliant  language  and 
thought  written  by  him  in  the  midst  of  an  exceed- 
ingly busy  life;  so  sound  is  the  fruit  of  his  well- 
rooted  learning.  .  .  . 

"In  my  most  bitter  hours,  as  I  have  before  inti- 
mated, when  I  was  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  every 
sort  of  annoyance,  Charles  of  Lorraine  was  my  sole 
comforter.  It  is  he  that  has  taught  King  Henry  at 
all  times  to  be  liberal  in  philosophy  toward  every  one. 
Therefore,  attribute  to  Charles  of  Lorraine  the  credit 
for  my  being  freed  and  restored  by  King  Henry,  and 
for  the  four  years  that  I  have  pursued  my  studies  in 
peace.  As  the  latest  favor,  this  last  winter,  when  I 
was  indicted  and  called  into  court,  because  I  joined 
'eloquence'  with  philosophy  (in  my  teaching),  how 
great  was  his  kindness  and  equity  in  perceiving  and 
expediting  the  whole  affair !  He  heard  first  that  a 
most  serious  charge  had  been  made.  Some  one 
declared  that  I  was  an  Academic,  an  enemy  to  God 
and  humanity,  flouting  all  laws,  human  and  divine, 
and  even  teaching  my  pupils  to  scorn  them,  that  I 
expounded  misleading  passages  of  St.  Augustine  in 


PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE       53 

the  interest  of  unbridled  and  impious  license,  and 
that,  in  order  to  abuse  unguarded  minds  more 
easily,  I  wished  to  eliminate  all  logical  disputations 
(from  the  curriculum  of  my  college). 

"  When  the  cardinal  told  me  at  dinner  of  this  and 
bade  me  answer,  —  'Alas!'  I  cried,  'my  Maecenas, 
what  do  I  hear  ?  Out  of  what  occurrences  hi  my 
entire  life  could  any  one  fabricate  so  false  a  suspicion 
and  base  a  slander  ?  For  I  subscribe  to,  know,  and 
approve  of  no  curriculum,  save  that  which  is  con- 
sistent and  harmonious  with  the  true  and  useful 
precepts  of  grammar,  rhetoric,  and  philosophy,  our 
state,  and  the  Christian  religion.  Quite  contrary  to 
this  absurd  piece  of  mendacity,  I  maintain  the 
principles  of  the  true  and  useful  arts,  illustrate  them 
with  examples,  and  exercise  and  practice  them  daily. 
So  far  am  I  from  scorning  them  or  teaching  others 
to  do  so  !  My  books,  inscribed  with  familiar  exam- 
ples from  the  poets,  orators,  and  philosophers,  I 
have  shown  thee.  Nor  have  I  cited  misleading  pas- 
sages from  Augustine,  and,  I  believe,  there  is  no 
college  hi  the  entire  university  in  which  logical 
disputations  are  more  diligently  pursued  than  in 
mine.  Wherefore,  my  Maecenas,  in  the  name  of  the 
living  God,  most  just  and  holy,  exert  thy  valor  and 


54  PETER   RAMUS 

vindicate  my  innocence  of  this  foul  and  horrid  charge. 
Such  are  the  accusations  under  which  I  am  con- 
demned, unless  thou  bearest  me  aid  ! ' 

"  Thereupon,  my  hearers,  I  witnessed  the  indigna- 
tion of  this  most  noble  and  virtuous  cardinal  violently 
aroused  by  such  an  atrocity.  On  the  next  day,  then, 
he  demanded  of  the  president  of  the  parlement  that 
my  case  be  at  once  brought  to  trial.  .  .  .  They 
who  were  present  can  remember  with  what  true  and 
weighty  words  the  cardinal  assailed  my  accusers. 
With  equal  firmness  the  next  day  the  judge  sat  in 
the  court  for  almost  three  continuous  hours  and  .  .  . 
heard  the  case.  At  the  close  he  and  the  parlement 
decided  unanimously  that  my  students  should  be 
completely  restored  to  their  former  privileges,  that 
lectures  on  philosophy  should  be  given  at  the  regular 
hours  on  the  days  ordinarily  set  for  university 
sessions,  and  that  in  the  remaining  hours  of  the 
regular  days  I  might  lecture  upon  the  poets,  orators, 
and  other  classic  authors,  instead  of  upon  phi- 
losophy. And  it  was  just  this  union  of  '  eloquence ' 
and  philosophy  for  which  I  had  been  so  long  con- 
tending !  .  .  . 

"Therefore,  my  Maecenas,  by  gaining  this  most 
righteous  verdict,  thou  hast  obtained  leisure  and 


PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE        55 

peace  for  my  studies,  and  sincerity  and  truth  for  phi- 
losophy. .  .  .  And  when  the  university  of  Paris  shall 
come  to  realize  how  vast  and  infinite  a  benefit  thou 
hast  bestowed,  she  will  hail  thee  as  her  Maecenas, 
and  not  mine  alone.  She  will  compare  thee  not 
only  to  the  great  cardinals  of  the  ages,  but  will  judge 
that  Charles  the  Great  (Charlemagne),  her  founder, 
has  miraculously  returned  in  the  guise  of  Charles  of 
Lorraine  to  mold  and  complete  the  crude  and 
inchoate  beginnings  of  his  ancient  university.  Since 
such  is  the  case,  my  hearers,  in  my  own  name  and 
that  of  the  state,  I  render  most  hearty  thanks  to 
Charles  of  Lorraine." 

In  an  equally  poetic  way  he  followed  the  account 
of  his  vindication  with  a  general  exposition  of  his 
ethical  and  educational  ideas.  At  the  close  of  the 
oration  he  was  met  with  deafening  plaudits  from  the 
assembly,  in  which  were  seated  many  of  his  adver- 
saries. This  brilliant  inauguration  was  the  fore- 
runner of  a  most  remarkable  career.  The  utterances 
of  Ramus  were  no  longer  confined  to  the  students  of 
a  single  college,  but  resounded  throughout  Paris,  and 
an  innumerable  body  of  students  not  only  from  all 
parts  of  France,  but  from  many  other  countries  of 
Europe,  flocked  to  hear  him.  He  realized  that  the 


56  PETER   RAMUS 

friends  who  had  stood  by  him  had  formed  high  ex- 
pectations of  his  achievements,  and  never  allowed  his 
work  to  fall  below  the  best  of  which  he  was  capable. 
Instead  of  the  ordinary  routine  method  of  droning 
through  a  commentary  upon  a  given  passage,  he  made 
a  treatment  of  the  author  that  was  at  once  free  and 
interesting,  and  gave  illustrations  and  applications 
that  greatly  added  to  the  value  of  his  exposition. 
The  material  of  his  lectures  on  the  classics  he  soon 
began  to  publish,  and  rapidly  put  out  a  number  of 
commentaries  relating  to  the  works  of  Cicero, 
Vergil,  and  Caesar.1  His  interest  in  philosophy  and 
logic,  however,  did  not  flag,  and  he  took  advantage  of 
the  new  liberty  given  him  to  show  in  his  lectures  on 
the  poets  and  orators  the  way  in  which  the  principles 
of  logic  obtained  in  any  work  of  the  intellect.  Hence 

--^vwv^iMM«aMMMM«HHMM^iHVMVVffiH^PM«^M*MMNV*MHBHM*>MV*iM**MM«*"**<M""*M|>1^  v~T***t"1 

he  revived  his  old  method  of  joining  the  study  of  /elo- 
quence '  with  that  of  philosophy.  Similarly,  when- 
ever he  explained  any  classical  author,  he  endeavored 

1 M .  Tulii  Ciceronis  de  lege  agraria  contra  P.  Servilium  Rullum 
tribunum  plcbis  orationes  Ires  (1552),  M.  T.  Ciceronis  in  L.  Catilinam 
orationes  III  I  (1553),  P.  Virgilii  Maronis  Bucolica  (1555),  P. 
Virgilii  Maronis  Georgica  (1556),  M.  T.  Ciceronis  de  optima  genere 
oratorum  prcefatio  (1556),  Ciceronianus  (1557),  M.  T.  Ciceronis 
familiar  ium  epistolarum  libri  XVI  (1557),  Liber  de  moribus  veterum 
Gattorum  (1559),  Liber  de  Casaris  Militia  (1559). 


PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE        57 

to  see  what  art  or  science  he  could  teach  through  this 
medium.  Thus  the  orations  and  the  treatise  On 
Fate  of  Cicero  served  as  texts  on  rhetoric  and  dialec- 
tic, the  Georgics  of  Vergil  were  used  as  a  means 
of  teaching  'physics'  or  natural  science,  and  the 
Dream  of  Scipio  in  Cicero's  Republic  for  treating  » 
astronomy.  He  felt  that  he  might  thus  advance  ! 
the  study  of  the  liberal  arts  and  make  them  more 
useful.  This  practical  tendency  of  his  teaching 
caused  his  opponents  to  give  him  the  nickname  of 
usuarius,  or  'utilitarian.' 1 

In  fact,  Ramus  planned  nothing  short  of  a  reform 
of  all  the  liberal  arts,  and  during  this  period  wrote 
most  of  his  works  upon  each  of  the  disciplines  in  the 
trimum.  In  grammar  he  published  his  lectures  on 
Priscian  and  other  grammarians  under  the  title  of 
Studies  in  Grammar?  This  was  not  merely  a  criti- 
cal treatise,  but  undertook  to  establish  construc- 
tive principles.  About  the  same  time  he  put  out 
works  upon  Latin  grammar,3  and  in  the  succeeding 

1  See  Turnebi  disputatio  ad  librum  Ciceronis  De  Fato  (1556),  fol. 
320.    If  pragmatist '  were  not  so  modern,  it  would  render  this  word 
most  aptly. 

2  Schola  Grammaiica  (1559). 

1  Grammatics  libri  quattuor  (1559)  and  Rudimenla  grammatka 
(i5S9). 


58  PETER   RAMUS 

years  he  wrote  treatises  upon  Greek  grammar,1  and 
even  a  work  on  the  vernacular,2  which  ran  through 
many  editions.  On  rhetoric  Ramus  also  produced 
reform  works.  The  critical  treatises  on  Cicero  and 
Quintilian,  which  had  led  to  such  an  uproar,3  he 
now  modified  and  united  under  the  less  aggressive 
title  of  Studies  in  Rhetoric.*  The  more  constructive, 
if  no  less  difficult,  task  of  positively  formulating  the 
principles  of  rhetoric  from  his  point  of  view  he  left 
to  his  colleague,  who  published  during  the  early  part 
of  this  period  the  Lectures  ofOmer  Talon  on  Rhetoric* 
Ramus  also  continued  his  works  upon  dialectic.  While 
he  still  felt  that  all  the  liberal  arts  were  merely  applica- 
tions of  this  subject,  he  published  separate  treatises 
upon  it.  First  of  all,  however,  there  appeared  a 
much  improved  edition  of  the  Institutions  of  Dialectic.6 
The  next  year  was  printed  his  vernacular  work  on  the 
subject,7  which  is  considered  by  some8  to  be  his  most 

1  Grammatica  graca  (1560)  and  Rudimenta  grammatica  graca. 
(1560). 

2  Gramere  (1562),  afterward  (1567,1572,1587,  etc.)  Grammaire 
de  Pierre  de  la  Ramke. 

3  See  pp.  42  ff.  4  Scholce  rhetorics. 

5  Prcdectiones  in  A.  Talaei  rhetoricam,  1554  and  1562. 

6  See  pp.  30  f . 

7  Dialectique  (1555). 

8  See  Cousin,  Fragments  Philosophiques  Modernes,  I,  p.  14. 


PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE        59 

important  contribution  to  philosophy,  and  in  the  two 
years  following  he  published  respectively  his  final 
word  on  logic  in  two  books,1  and  a  modified  and  much 
enlarged  edition  of  the  Animadversions  ~  in  twenty 
books  which  he  called  Studies  in  Dialectic? 

Thus  by  1559  the  position  of  Ramus  with  regard 
to  the  trivium,  or  elementary  liberal  arts,  had  been 
fairly  formulated,  and  he  was  now  at  liberty  to  under- 
take works  on  the  quadrimum,  especially  mathematics. 
In  this  subject,  however,  he  was  one  of  the  path- 
breakers,  as  not  much  had  been  done  up  to  this  time 
at  the  University  of  Paris.  He  thus  had  need  of 
instructing  himself  before  attempting  to  impart  his 
knowledge  to  others.  He  had  been  one  of  the  best 
pupils  of  Oronce  Finee,4  the  first  professor  of  mathe- 
matics at  the  University,  and  while  still  at  the  College 
of  Ave  Maria,  he  had  produced  a  translation  of  the 
first  six  books  of  Euclid,  in  which  he  tried  to  apply 
logic  to  the  presentation  of  the  subject.5  Eleven 
years  later  he  had  published  an  elementary  arith- 
metic.6 He  now  returned  to  the  study  of  geometry 
with  great  ardor.  For  a  time,  however,  he  tells  us, 

1  Dialectics  libri  duo  (1556).  2  See  p.  10. 

3  Scholar  dialectics  (1557).  *  See  p.  18. 

5  Euclides  (1554).    See  p.  164. 

6  Arithmetics  libri  ires  (1555). 


60  PETER   RAMUS 

he  was  unable  to  get  beyond  the  tenth  book  of  Euclid 
and  abandoned  the  subject  in  disgust.  "But  soon," 
says  he,  "  I  was  ashamed  of  stopping  so,  and  bringing 
myself  back  to  the  place  where  I  had  gone  astray 
I  devoured  the  tenth  book,  and  continued  the  study 
of  pyramids,  prisms,  cubes,  spheres,  cones,  and 
cylinders.  Moreover,  once  I  had  clambered  over 
the  first  crags  and  learned  the  elements  of  Euclid,  I 
read  through  the  Spherics  of  Theodosius  and  the 
Cylindrics  of  Archimedes.  I  had  already  mastered 
Apollonius,  Serenus,  and  Pappus,  and  after  a  few 
months  I  was  able  to  pierce  the  last  mysteries  of 
geometry."  1  From  this  account  it  can  be  realized 
how  difficult  was  the  study  of  geometry  at  that  time. 
He  who  would  master  it  had  largely  to  make  his  own 
translation  from  the  very  imperfect  editions  of  the 
Greek  mathematicians  as  he  went  along.  Ramus 
worked  at  the  subject  persistently,  both  alone  and 
with  chosen  pupils,  and  not  only  made  himself  one 
of  the  leading  mathematicians  of  France  in  his  day, 
but  helped  to  train  a  number  of  distinguished  mathe- 
matical scholars. 

He  did  not,  however,  begin  to  work  on  the  subject 
in  earnest  until  he  had  been  able  to   secure   more 

1  Oratio  de  professione  liber alium  artium  (1563). 


PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE       6l 

leisure  and  material.  Later  he  was  able  to  procure 
copies  of  the  Greek  mathematicians  from  the  royal 
library  at  Fontainebleau,  some  of  the  treasures  from 
Venice  and  the  Vatican  through  the  Italian  ambassa- 
dors, and  works  from  foreign  scholars,  like  Camera- 
rius  and  Rheticus  of  Germany  and  Ascham  of  Eng- 
land. From  1566  on  he  gave  considerable  time  to 
mathematics.  While  he  had  Forcadel,  whom  he  had 
nominated  for  a  professorship  in  the  Royal  College, 
teach  arithmetic  and  geometry  in  French,  he  himself 
lectured  on  the  Greek  mathematicians,  of  whom  he 
had  obtained  copies.  He  also  bought  or  had  copied 
manuscripts  of  Archimedes,  Proclus,  and  others,  and 
had  several  of  the  young  mathematicians  translate 
them  into  Latin  under  his  direction.1  Within  a 
space  of  four  years  he  wrote  some  five  or  six  important 
works  on  mathematics  in  Latin  or  French.2 

Just  before  this,  while  he  was  enduring  an  exile 
of  which  we  shall  shortly  hear,  Ramus  also  found 
time  to  complete  the  only  one  of  his  treatises  that 


1  Nancel,  Epistola,  p.  i,  1.  61. 

2  Actiones  dute  mathematics  (1566),  Preface  sur  le  Pro'eme  des 
Mathtmatiques  (1566),  Prooemium  mathematicum  (1567),  Geome- 
tric libri  seplem  et  viginti  (1569),  and  Scholarum  malhematicarum 
libri  unus  et  triginta  (1569),  are  still  in  existence. 


62  PETER   RAMUS 

we  have  upon  Physics,  or  natural  science.1  It  was 
taught  in  the  College  of  France  and  elsewhere,  and 
he  would  gladly  have  devoted  much  of  his  life  to 
furthering  it,  had  it  not  been  for  the  persecutions 
that  were  now  approaching.  After  his  return  to 
Paris  the  book  was  sent  to  press. 

i        n«  !•  -~***imamf**m*mm*km*ff*B 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  enemies  of  Ramus 
were  idle  during  this  period  of  his  productiveness  or 
that  this  reform  of  the  matter  and  method  of  the  liberal 
arts  was  carried  on  without  a  struggle.  But  the  con- 
troversies were  of  much  the  same  type  of  guerilla 
warfare  that  he  had  previously  endured  and  had 
about  as  little  result.  A  typical  instance  is  his 
quarrel  with  the  doctors  of  the  Sorbonne  over  pro- 
nunciation. The  professors  of  the  College  of  France 
tried  to  bring  back  the  original  pronunciation  of 
Latin  in  place  of  the  erroneous  and  slipshod  methods 
into  which  the  university  colleges  had  degenerated. 
The  chief  point  of  discussion  was  the  pronunciation  of 
qu,  from  which  combination  the  Sorbonists  were  wont 
to  omit  the  u  in  speaking.  For  example,  they  pro- 
nounced the  Latin  words  as  kiskis,  kankam,  kantus, 
and  kalis  instead  of  giving  the  initial  value  of  kw. 
Similarly,  h  in  mihi  was  pronounced  gutturally  as  ch. 
1  Scholarum  physicarum  libri  octo  (1565). 


PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE        63 

In  the  controversy  which  followed,  it  is  even  said l 
that  one  of  the  reformers  was  summoned  before 
parlement  and  prosecuted  for  grammatical  'heresy,' 
and,  had  it  not  been  for  Ramus  and  his  other  col- 
leagues, who  attended  the  trial  and  gave  the  judges 
to  understand  that  grammar  was  out  of  their  juris- 
diction, it  might  have  fared  badly  with  the  luckless 
professor.  The  contest  over  the  reforms  of  Ramus 
in  rhetoric  was  also  continued  by  Galland,  Perion,2 
and  their  sympathizers. 

But  the  most  rabid  opposition  was  raised  to  the 
positions  of  our  reformer  on  logic.  Here  Car- 
pentarius,  jealous  and  thirsting  for  revenge  after 
his  defeat  in  i55i,3  was  most  persistent  and 
bitter.  He  did  not  dare  attack  Ramus  as 
lecturer  in  the  Royal  College,  but  the  latter's 
position  hi  the  College  of  Presles  enabled  him  to 
renew  all  his  virulent  methods.  He  again  insisted 

1  Crevier  (Hist,  de  I' Univ.  de  Paris,  1.  X,  §  2)  claims  that  the 
whole  story  of  prosecution  for  heresy  in  grammar  is  very  unlikely, 
although  one  would  hesitate  on  that  account  to  impeach  wholesale, 
as  he  does,  all  the  testimony  offered  by  the  Ramists.  The  incident 
is  narrated  by  Ramus  himself  (Schol.  gram.,  1.  II)  and  confirmed  by 
Zwinger  (Theatrum  humana  vita,  Vol.  IV,  1.  i,  p.  noo),  and,  as 
Waddington  intimates  (pp.  87  f.),  there  were  few  lengths  to  which 
the  theologians  of  the  day  would  not  go. 

*  See  pp.  32  ff .  and  43  ff.  *  See  pp.  45  ff . 


64  PETER   RAMUS 

that  the  reformer  was  breaking  the  university 
statutes  when  he  taught  Aristotle  by  going  freely 
from  idea  to  idea  rather  than  by  the  traditional  word- 
for-word  method,  and  he  opposed  more  vigorously 
than  before  the  union  of  the  study  of  'eloquence' 
with  that  of  philosophy.  Happily,  however,  the  parle- 
ment  held  to  its  previous  decision  to  let  Ramus  teach 
as  he  wished  on  some  two  hundred  days  of  the  year 
and  at  odd  hours  on  other  days.1  Thereupon, 
Carpentarius,  under  the  pretext  of  a  commentary 
on  the  Institutions  of  Ramus,2  let  loose  the  vials  of 
his  wrath.  In  this  pamphlet  he  repeats  all  the  pet 
epithets  with  which  he  had  previously  assailed  him. 
Ramus  is  called  'slanderer,'  'plagiarist,'  'sophist,' 
'comedian,'  'skeptic,'  and  'corrupter  of  youth.'  He 
brutally  recalls  the  verdict  of  the  king  a  dozen 
years  before,3  and  gets  a  malicious  pleasure  out  of 
the  fact  that  Ramus  was  constantly  modifying  his 
statements  about  dialectic.4  He  mocks  the  reform- 
er's pretensions  to  dignity  and  jests  about  his  long 
beard,  declaring  that  without  such  artificial  aid  he 
himself  had  been  able  to  attain  to  the  rectorship. 

1  See  p.  46. 

1  Jacobi  Carpentaria  Animadversiones  in  libros  ires  Dialecticarum 
institutionum  Petri  Kami  (1555). 

1  See  pp.  34  ff.  *  See  footnote  3,  p.  65. 


PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE       65 

Ramus  did  not  consider  this  mountebank  worthy 
of  a  reply,  but  the  case  seemed  different  when  criti- 
cism was  offered  by  Adrien  Turnebus.  The  latter 
was  a  learned  professor  and  a  man  of  character 
and  social  position,  but  he  had  been  piqued  because 
the  loss  occasioned  by  the  death  of  his  predecessor 
in  the  College  of  France  had  in  a  eulogy1  by  Ramus 
been  declared  to  be  quite  irreparable.  In  editing  the 
De  Fato  of  Cicero,  Turnebus  embraced  the  oppor- 
tunity for  venting  his  displeasure  upon  Ramus,  who 
had  commented  upon  the  same  work.2  In  this  work 
Turnebus  criticizes  the  modifications  which  Ramus 
made  in  his  dialectic  works  as  his  knowledge  broad- 
ened.3 He  accuses  him  of  inconsistency  and  instabil- 
ity, and  asks :  "Which  is  your  genuine  position  in  so 
many  shifting  editions  ?  Do  you  yourself  know  what 

1  The  predecessor  of  Turnebus  in  the  lectureship  was  Jacques 
Tousan,  who  had  been  one  of  the  former  teachers  of  Ramus,  and 
had  given  him  much  encouragement  in  his  ideas  on  logic.    See 
preface  to  his  Platonis  Epistola,  and  Collectan.  prcefat.,  pp.  99  f. 

2  The  title  of  the  book  shows  his  animus :  Ad.  Turnebi  disputatio 
ad  librum    Ciceronis  de  /a/0,   adversus  quemdam  qui  non  solum 
logicus  esse,  verum  etiam  dialecticus  haberi  vult  (1556). 

3  While  Ramus  did  not  answer  this  common  criticism  at  the 
time,  he  had  the  year  before  said  in  the  preface  to  his  Dialectique: 
"But  truly  this  inconsistency  is  praised  as  a  real  consistency  not 
only  by  Horace  and  Apelles,  but  also  by  philosophers,  especially 
Aristotle,  who  teaches  us  that  philosophy  ought,  for  the  sake  of 


66  PETER   RAMUS 

you  wish  ?  "  And  again  he  declares :  "  It  is  a  poor  way 
to  conceal  your  ignorance  by  unceasingly  slandering 
the  great  authors.  You  have  only  gained  thereby  a 
sad  reputation  for  ignorance, impudence, and  vanity." 
Ramus  felt  that  an  adverse  opinion  from  such  a 
source  must  be  met,  and  while  he  could  not  openly 
break  his  custom  of  keeping  silent  under  criticism, 
without  loss  of  time  he  issued  under  the  name  of 
Talon  a  dignified  and  courteous  reply.1  He  made 
it  very  clear  that  he  did  not  rank  Turnebus  with 
Carpentarius,  and  rebuked  him  mildly  for  his  attack. 
Turnebus  in  turn  replied  through  a  friend,  and  the 
quarrel  stopped  with  mutual  respect,  if  not  agree- 
ment, and  before  long  the  two  scholars  became  firm 
friends. 

Thus  Ramus  escaped  practically  unscathed  from 
the  various  attacks  upon  his  reforms,  and,  as  the 
years  passed,  his  reputation  as  an  educator  grew 
constantly  greater.  During  this  period  of  prosperity, 
too,  he  was  able  to  demonstrate  his  gifts  as  an  orator 

truth,  to  criticize  not  only  all  others,  but  also  itself.  Moreover, 
this  consistency,  accused  of  being  inconsistency,  is  ordained  of 
God  and  of  Nature,  as  a  difficult  and  slippery  ascent,  by  walking 
up  which  we  discover  and  define  the  only  road  to  the  knowledge 
of  science  and  learning." 

1  A.  Talai  Admonitio  ad  A.  Tuna-bum  (1556). 


PROFESSOR  IN  THE  ROYAL  COLLEGE        67 

and  diplomat.  He  was  chosen  by  the  university  to 
represent  it  before  the  king  upon  various  occasions. 
In  1557,  especially,  he  was  greatly  commended  for 
pleading  the  cause  of  the  university  under  very 
important  circumstances.  A  quarrel  of  long  stand- 
ing1 between  students  of  the  university  and  the  monks 
of  St.  Germain  over  the  possession  of  the  'student 
fields'  (Pre-aux-dercs)  had  broken  out  again  with 
much  violence  and  rioting.2  While  the  students 
were  mostly  to  blame  for  stirring  up  the  old  dispute, 
they  were  not  the  first  to  shed  blood.  Yet  they 
alone  suffered  for  the  disturbance.  The  parlement 
condemned  one  student  to  be  hanged  and  burnt, 

*For  a  former  (1548)  outbreak,  during  which  the  students 
devastated  the  abbey  gardens  and  broke  the  windows  of  the  mon- 
astery with  stones,  see  Du  Boulay,  Hist,  de  I' Univ.  de  Paris,  t.  VT, 
pp.  406  ff .  While  Ramus  apparently  tried  on  this  occasion  to  pacify 
the  students  by  haranguing  them,  he  was  ever  afterward,  on  the 
strength  of  his  speech,  accused  by  his  enemies  of  further  inciting 
the  students.  E.g.  Felibien,  Hist,  de  I'Abbaye  royal  de  Saint  Ger- 
main-des-Pres,  p.  185,  and  Hist,  de  la  mile  de  Paris,  t.  II,  pp.  102- 
105  ff.  But  Du  Boulay  and  De  Thou  do  not  even  mention  Ramus 
in  the  affair.  In  fact,  the  evidence  against  Ramus  seems  to  come 
from  a  prejudiced  source,  Jacques  du  Breul,  who  was  a  member 
of  the  order  and  declares  he  was  present  at  the  riot.  See  Theatre 
des  antiquitez  de  Paris  (1612),  1,  II,  pp.  385  f. 

2  Du  Boulay,  op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  pp.  491  ff.;  Crevier,  Hist,  de  I'Univ. 
de  Paris,  t.  VI,  29  ff . ;  Felibien,  Histoire  de  la  viUe  de  Paris,  t.  II, 
pp.  125  ff. 


68  PETER   RAMUS 

and  others,  who  had  been  arrested,  seemed  to  be 
doomed.  The  same  tribunal  ordered  that  the  gates 
of  the  university  colleges  be  closed  at  six  every 
evening,  the  students  disarmed,  and  all  public 
lectures  suspended.  Moreover,  the  king,  hearing 
of  the  riot  and  being  exceedingly  wroth,  confiscated 
the  fields,  required  all  foreign  students  to  leave  the 
kingdom  within  a  fortnight,  and  expelled  the  '  externs/ 
or  students  living  at  Paris  with  their  parents,  from 
the  university.  In  dismay  the  faculties  sent  a 
delegation  to  the  king,  to  secure  some  modification 
of  the  judgment.  Ramus  was  a  member  of  this 
commission,  and,  through  his  eloquence  and  his 
influence  with  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine,  its  most 
influential  member,  met  with  great  success.  Upon 
the  promise  of  reform,  the  king  was  at  length  per- 
suaded, quite  contrary  to  all  expectations,  to^revoke 
the  measures  against  the  university,  reprieve  the 
condemned  students,  restore  the  public  lectures, 
countermand  the  banishment  of  the  foreign  students, 
and  order  parlement  to  stop  its  prosecutions.  The 
delegates  were  overwhelmed  with  praise,  especially 
Ramus,  when  by  request  he  gave  in  a  public  address 
an  account  of  the  whole  affair.  But  the  king  was 
also  inclined  to  insure  the  fulfillment  of  the  promised 


PROFESSOR   IN   THE    ROYAL   COLLEGE  69 

academic  reforms,  and  insisted  upon  the  selection 
of  a  special  committee  of  seven  to  investigate  and 
propose  what  would  be  most  necessary  and  useful 
for  the  improvement  of  the  institution.  Ramus  was 
appointed  by  the  faculty  of  arts,  together  with  his 
old  opponent,  Carpentarius,  and  the  report  that 
he  offered  later  *  was  most  important  hi  its  effects 
upon  the  University  of  Paris  in  particular.2 

Another  diplomatic  mission  of  Ramus  that  was  of 
great  service  to  education  was  his  securing  the  arrears 
in  salary  due  the  professors  in  the  College  of  France. 
During  the  one-year  reign  of  Francis  II  and  the  first 
three  years  of  Charles  IX's  reign,  the  Guises  were 
in  complete  control  of  the  government,3  and  the 
finances  were  notoriously  mismanaged.  For  two  years 
the  professors  of  the  Royal  College  failed  to  receive 
their  stipends,  although  they  continued  conscien- 
tiously to  fulfill  their  duties,  and  in  1561  Ramus  was 
sent  to  petition  the  king.  He  was  also  commissioned 
to  solicit  a  confirmation  and  renewal  of  the  privileges 
for  the  university,  as  had  to  be  done  at  the  beginning 
of  each  reign.  Although  his  patron,  the  Cardinal 

1  See  pp.  78  ff. 

2  Du  Boulay,  op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  pp.  489  and  517  f. ;  F61ibien,  op.  cit., 
t.  II,  pp.  1057  f- 

1  See  pp.  ii  ff. 


7O  PETER   EAMUS 

of  Guise,  was  no  longer  at  the  court  to  intercede 
for  him,  the  Prince  of  Conde,  who  was  in  favor  with 
the  queen-mother,1  and  other  persons  of  prominence 
supported  his  claim  and  enabled  him  to  bring  back  a 
goodly  portion  of  the  accrued  salaries  and  all  the 
former  charters  and  privileges  of  the  university, 
bound  hi  a  single  volume.  His  zeal  and  tact  aroused 
great  enthusiasm  in  the  academic  circles,  and  an  ac- 
count of  his  services  to  the  university  was  inscribed 
at  the  end  of  the  manuscript  of  privileges. 

Hence  by  1561  nearly  all  the  old  adversaries  of 
Ramus,  including  even  the  fanatical  Galland  and  the 
offended  Turnebus,  had  been  conquered  through  his 
persistence  and  evident  sincerity.  Esteem  succeeded 
hostility  with  every  one  save  Carpentarius.  The  op- 
position of  that  unprincipled  leader  was  now  increased 
through  envy,  for  Ramus  had  come  into  high  favor 
with  king,  parlement,  and  university. 

1  See  pp.  ii  ff. 


CHAPTER  IV 

CONVERSION,  PERSECUTION,  AND  DEATH 

MUCH  of  the  prestige  that  Ramus  had  obtained 
would  seem  to  have  been  due  to  the  friendship  of  the 
Guises,  who  were  so  influential  in  church  and  state. 
It  now  remains  for  us  to  see  the  effect  upon  his  career 
of  becoming  a  Protestant  and  so  sacrificing  their 
friendship.  The  Duke  of  Guise  and  his  brother,  the 
Cardinal  of  Lorraine,  represented  the  extreme  Catho- 
lic party,  and  Ramus,  while  endeavoring  to  dethrone 
Aristotle,  had  remained  a  member  of  the  church  in 
good  standing.  Until  1561  he  maintained  in  his  own 
life  all  the  observances  of  a  zealous  Catholic.  He 
went  to  mass  every  morning  at  six,  and,  under 
penalty  of  a  severe  reprimand,  required  the  same 
practice  of  the  students  in  the  College  of  Presles.1 
He  was  attached  to  Mother  Church  by  bonds  of 
unusual  emotion  and  material  interest,  but  the  pro- 
cess of  his  conversion,  while  slow,  was  inevitable.  He 
was  too  clear-headed  not  to  have  misgivings  as  to 
the  efficacy  of  the  ritual  and  dominant  theology  of 
1  Nancel,  op.  tit.,  pp.  23  £.,  53,  70. 


72  PETER   RAMUS 

the  church  of  the  times,  and  his  personal  and  pro- 
fessional associations  all  tended  to  draw  him  into  the 
Protestant  camp.  The  medieval  Aristotle,  whom 
he  had  vigorously  assailed,  was  still  protected  by 
the  church,  and  the  two  were  so  thoroughly  identified 
as  to  be  almost  indistinguishable.  Those  who  de- 
parted from  the  traditional  views  of  the  Greek  phi- 
losopher were  reputed  to  be  heretics,1  and  it  could 
not  be  denied  that  such  reformers  as  Luther,  Zwingli, 
and  Calvin  had  first  dreamed  of  suppressing  Aris- 
totle.2 Moreover,  the  clergy  were  generally  very 
ignorant,  and  an  intellectual  man  was  bound  to  find 
himself  associated,  to  a  great  extent,  with  the  Hugue- 
nots, who  at  the  time  had  nearly  a  monopoly  of  learn- 
ing. A  majority  of  the  professors  at  the  College 
of  France  were  actually  Protestants  or  suspected  of 
being  such,  and  many  of  the  patrons  and  friends 
of  Ramus  were  more  or  less  under  the  influence  of 
the  new  religion.3  A  large  number  of  his  pupils 

1  Rapin,  Reflexions  sur  Vusage  de  la  philosophic,  §  VI. 

2  Two  of  the  propositions  of  Luther  condemned  in  1521  by  the 
faculty  of  theology  at  Paris  related  definitely  to  Aristotelianism. 
See  also  pp.  5  ff. 

*It  is  said  that  even  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine  sympathized 
secretly  with  the  aims  of  Protestantism,  and  his  attitude  at  the 
Colloquy  of  Poissy  points  that  way.  Jean  dc  Montluc,  bishop 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  73 

at  the  College  of  Presles,  too,  were  of  Huguenot 
parentage,  or  became  converted  through  the  influ- 
ence of  the  school. 

Ramus  himself  was  early  suspected  1  of  Calvinistic 
leanings.  Ascham  even  wrote  to  Sturm2  in  1552 
that  one  of  the  pupils  of  Ramus  had  stated  that 
while  his  master's  convictions  were  secretly  Protes- 
tant, he  still  hesitated  to  make  an  open  confession 
of  his  faith.  But  for  nearly  a  decade  longer  Ramus 
protested  his  attachment  to  the  church,  and  insisted 
that  he  had  attacked  Aristotle  simply  in  the  name  of 
the  Gospel,  on  the  ground  that  his  Ethics  was  hereti- 
cal and  pagan.3  The  immediate  cause  of  his  conver- 
sion was  the  Colloquy  of  Poissy.  This  conference 
took  place  in  September,  1561,  with  the  idea  of 
bringing  out  a  discussion  of  the  points  of  difference 
between  Catholics  and  Protestants  and  so  effecting 
some  degree  of  toleration  between  the  two  parties, 
but  it  resulted  only  in  increasing  the  bitterness.4 
Strangely  enough,  it  was  not  the  speech  of  Theodore 

of  Valence,  was  also  sympathetically  inclined,  and  frequently 
showed  himself  a  good  friend  to  the  Protestants. 

1  Nancel,  op.  cii.,  pp.  33  and  63. 

2  Letters  of  Ascham  (Oxford,  1703),  Book  I,  Letter  9. 

J  Du  Verdier,  Bibliotheque  franqaise,  article  on  Aristotle. 
4  See  p.  74. 


74  PETER   RAMUS 

Beza,1  the  able  exponent  of  Calvinism,  that  convinced 
Ramus,  but  the  argument  made  in  reply  by  the  Car- 
dinal of  Lorraine.  That  prelate  publicly  admitted  all 
the  abuses  of  the  church,  the  vices  of  the  clergy,  and 
the  superiority  of  the  primitive  church  to  that  of 
the  day,  but  did  not  grant  the  obvious  conclusion.2 
Ramus  and  others  felt  it  forced  upon  them.3  A 
letter  written  by  Ramus  to  his  former  patron  some 
nine  years  later  states  definitely  how  the  address 
affected  him.  He  says  in  part :  — 

"It  is  not  through  myself,  it  is  through  your  favor 
(the  greatest  of  all  the  many  you  have  heaped  upon 
me)  that  I  have  come  to  understand  the  precious 
truth,  so  well  presented  in  your  discourse  at  the 
Colloquy  of  Poissy :  namely,  that  of  the  fifteen  cen- 
turies which  have  passed  since  the  advent  of  Christ, 
the  first  was  truly  the  'golden  age,'  and  that,  in  pro- 
portion as  it  has  been  departed  from,  all  ages  which 
have  followed  have  been  more  vicious  and  corrupt. 
Hence,  having  to  choose  between  these  different  ages 

1  See  p.  io. 

2  Guillemin,  Le  Cardinal  de  Lorraine,  p.  487. 

3  The  colloquy  is  now  believed  to  have  greatly  increased  the 
number  of  Huguenots.     See  Crevier,  op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  p.  127;  Pueux, 
Hist,  de  la  Reformation  Fran^aise,  Book  IX,  Chaps.  VIII-XIII. 
Among  the  converts  was  also  Caraccioli,  bishop  of  Troyes. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND  DEATH  75 

of  Christianity,  I  attached  myself  to  the  'golden 
age,'  and  since  that  time  I  have  never  ceased  to  read 
the  best  writings  of  theology.  I  have  put  myself  in 
harmony  and  communication  with  the  theologians 
themselves  as  far  as  I  could;  and  have  further,  for 
my  own  edification,  written  Commentaries  upon  the 
chief  points  of  religion."  1 

Thus,  having  once  started  on  the  new  line  of 
thought,  Ramus  went  the  full  way.  The  commen- 
taries mentioned  above  were  the  result  of  his  attempt 
to  apply  dialectic  to  theology,  as  he  had  to  all  the 
other  sciences  of  the  day,  but  they  were  not  completed 
until  after  his  contact  with  the  reformed  theologians 
in  Switzerland,  and  were  published  after  his  death. 
He  began  to  absent  himself  from  mass  and  the  other 
usages  of  the  church,  and  even  quietly  protested 
against  them.  To  an  intimate  friend  he  declared 
that  "two  things  have  been  especially  misunder- 
stood and  distorted  by  all  Christians  of  latter  days,  - 
to  wit,  the  sacrament  of  the  Holy  Supper,  and  the 
second  commandment  in  the  law,  which  forbids  all 
worship  of  images;  so  much  so  that,  in  these  two 
respects,  under  the  pretext  of  piety,  we  have  fallen 
more  and  more  into  an  execrable  idolatry."  2  Of 

1  Collect,  prof.,  pp.  257  f.  2  Banosius,  op.  cit.,  p.  25. 


76  PETER   RAMUS 

course  no  sentiment  could  be  more  clearly  Protestant 
than  this,  and  we  cannot  be  surprised  to  find  that 
Ramus  now,  while  not  openly  out  of  communion  with 
the  church,  showed  great  toleration,  if  not  marked 
favor,  to  all  Huguenots  among  his  students.  It 
seems  hardly  possible  that  he  ever  went  to  Protestant 
services,  much  less  that  he  took  his  students  there, 
as  did  some  professors,  but  it  is  more  than  likely  that 
he  was  among  those  intended  to  be  reprimanded  by 
the  rector  in  his  address  of  November  30,  I56I.1 
And  it  is  certain  that  the  students  of  the  College  of 
Presles  were  generally  becoming  reformed  and  de- 
serting the  Catholic  observances.  A  pupil  of  Ramus 
tells  us  that  at  the  Feast  of  the  Passover  in  1562  he 
and  his  master  were  the  only  two  communicants  in 
the  chapel,  except  for  one  visitor,  who  had  strayed  in.2 
The  Reformation,  however,  had  grown  to  such 
proportions  that  the  queen-mother,  upon  the  advice 
of  the  fair-minded  chancellor  of  the  kingdom,  Michel 
de  1'Hospital,  felt  obliged  to  issue  the  Edict  of  Tol- 
eration.3 While  this  did  not  go  the  full  distance  and 
allow  the  Protestants  to  worship  in  the  cities  or  in 

1  See  the  account  of  Crevier  (op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  p.  126)  and  of  Du 
Boulay  (op.  cit.,  p.  545). 

J  Nancel,  op.  cit.,  p.  72.  s  See  p.  12. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  77 

the  evening,  it  was  hailed  with  great  delight  on  the 
part  of  the  Huguenots  and  with  much  indignation  and 
opposition  from  the  Catholics.  The  students  of  the 
College  of  Presles  celebrated  the  event  by  bursting 
into  the  chapel  and  tearing  down  the  images  and 
statues.  Ramus,  of  course,  had  little  to  do  with  such 
a  desecration,  but  he  received  the  full  blame.  His 
opponents  incited  the  populace  against  him,1  and 
denounced  him  to  the  university  authorities  as  an 
iconoclast,  but  an  investigation  by  the  rector  failed 
to  reveal  the  evidence  desired  against  him.2  On  the 
other  hand,  the  rector  and  a  majority  of  the  princi- 
pals of  the  university  colleges  made  a  violent  demon- 
stration against  the  decree,  and  exhausted  every 
expedient  to  prevent  the  parlement  from  registering 
it.3  When,  after  two  months  of  delay,4  the  parle- 
ment did  finally  register  the  obnoxious  edict,  all  the 
smoldering  wrath  of  the  Guise  party  burst  into 
flame.5  The  Duke  of  Guise  declared  openly  that 
"his  sword  would  never  be  sheathed  until  he  com- 

1  Nancel,  op.  cit.,  p.  7^. 

1  Banosius,  op.  cit.,  p.  24 ;  Nancel,  op.  cit.,p.ji;  and  Du  Boulay, 
op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  p.  549. 

*Du  Boulay,  op.  cit.,  pp.   549  f. ;  Genebrard,  Chronographie, 

P-  746. 

*  Crevier,  op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  p.  129.  *  See  pp.  n  ff. 


78  PETER   RAMUS 

pelled  every  Frenchman  to  become  a  Catholic  or 
leave  the  realm."  1 

By  this  time  Ramus  must  have  completely  sacri- 
ficed all  his  influence  with  the  Guises.  As  will  be 
seen  later,  his  warm  patron,  the  Cardinal  of  Lor- 
raine, had  completely  turned  against  him.  While 
himself  inclined  toward  the  position  of  the  Protes- 
tants, statecraft  forced  him  to  become  their  most 
bitter  opponent.  Meanwhile,  despite  these  dis- 
turbed conditions,  Ramus  continued  to  produce  his 
works  on  the  liberal  arts,2  and  in  this  very  year  of 
conflict  (1562),  as  a  member  of  the  committee  to 
which  he  had  been  chosen  five  years  previously,  he 
presented  his  report  upon  academic  reform  to  the 
king  and  queen-mother.  This  Advice  on  the  Reforma- 
tion of  the  University  of  Paris3  boldly  attributes  many 
of  the  abuses  that  had  sprung  up  to  the  unlimited 
number  of  professors.  "For,  instead  of  a  given 

1  Pasquier,  Lettres,  1.  IV,  10.  2  See  p.  120. 

3  Ad-oertissements  sur  la  reformation  de  Vuniversite  de  Paris  au 
roy,  or,  in  the  Latin  edition,  Procemium  reformandee  Parisiensis 
academics  ad  regem,  was  published  anonymously,  but,  coming 
from  the  press  of  Andre  Wechel,  his  coreligionist  and  regular 
publisher,  its  origin  was  evident,  especially  as,  from  internal  evi- 
dence, the  author  was  clearly  a  Protestant,  a  professor  of  philosophy, 
a  royal  lecturer,  and  a  member  of  the  commission  of  investigation. 
See  Archives  Curieuses  de  I'Histoire  de  France,  t.  5,  pp.  115-163. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  79 

number  of  doctors  for  teaching,  an  infinity  of  men 
have  been  raised  up,  who,  provided  they  have  ac- 
quired the  name  and  degree  of  master  in  the  faculty 
of  which  they  make  profession,  whether  ignorant  or 
learned,  without  other  selection,  have  undertaken  to 
make  a  trade  of  teaching  philosophy,  medicine,  juris- 
prudence, or  theology.  Hence  has  arisen  the  storm 
which  has  despoiled  all  our  fields." *  But  while  the  in- 
structors have  gradually  multiplied,  the  number 
of  students  has  remained  practically  the  same,  and 
the  result  has  been  a  great  increase  in  the  fees  for  tui- 
tion and  degrees.  Thus,  for  philosophy,  the  expense 
of  the  pupils,  which  was  first  fixed  by  ordinance  and 
statute  at  four  to  six  ecus  2  at  the  most,  had  finally 
been  raised  to  fifty  or  fifty-six  limes?  Later,  he 
shows  that  the  professional  faculties  have  become 
even  more  disproportionate.  The  faculty  of  law, 
in  obedience  to  the  statute  of  1534,  is  content  with 
twenty-eight  ecus  per  student,  but  "  the  faculties  of 
medicine  and  theology,  in  comparison  with  that  of 

1  Advertissements,  p.  8. 

2  The  6cu  mentioned  must  have  been  the  tcu  d'or,  as  the  silver 
coin  of  that  name  was  not  introduced  until  1642,  and  the  franc 
d'argent,  often  called  ecu,  was  not  authorized  until  1575.    The  gold 
piece  was  worth  a  little  more  than  fifty  sols,  or  two  and  one  half 
livres,  and,  judged  by  the  weight  and  fineness  of  the  American 


80  PETER  RAMUS 

philosophy,  which  has  only  quadrupled  its  former 
revenue,  have  increased  their  fees,  not  in  arithmetical 
proportion,  which  would  have  been  beneath  their 
dignity,  but  in  geometrical  proportion."  1  The  pro- 
fessors of  medicine,  instead  of  twenty-eight  ecus, 
now  ask  eight  hundred  and  eighty  livres,  without 
counting  the  presents  to  apothecaries  and  barbers, 
their  former  pupils,2  while  the  theologians  demand 
of  their  unfortunate  students  more  than  one  thousand 
limes.  This  large  sum  is  distributed  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  course  under  some  thirty  items,  which  in- 
clude fees  for  the  professors,  priors,  porters,  and  presi- 
dent, for  the  banquets  and  suppers  of  the  teachers, 
president,  classmates,  and  examiners ;  and  for  the 
various  grades  of  examination,  theses,  seals,  degrees, 
sermons,  hoods,  and  perquisites.  Moreover,  even 
the  honor  of  being  proclaimed  first  at  the  master's 
examination  can  be  bought  for  a  high  price.3  With 
regard  to  these  unnecessary  expenses,  Ramus  asks :  — 
"  Of  what  use  are  so  many  gloves,  caps,  banquets, 

dollar,  worth  something  over  two  dollars.  Hence  the  fees  in  this 
case  were  raised  approximately  from  $8  or  $12  to  $40  or  $44.80; 
i.e.  they  were  practically  quadrupled.  Of  course  the  purchasing 
value  was  much  greater  than  it  would  be  for  the  same  sums  to-day. 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  18.  2  Op.  tit.,  p.  24. 

3  Op.  cit.,  pp.  27  ff.  Cf.  also  pp.  n,  22,  and  59  for  the  expenses 
of  the  other  degrees. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  8 1 

to  prove  the  diligence  and  competency  of  the  stu- 
dents ?  Where  do  so  many  purses  go,  and  to  what  use 
are  they  converted  ?  They  are  partly  distributed  to 
the  procurers,  receivers,  singers,  and  priests  who  say 
mass  and  solemn  vespers ;  a  good  part  of  this  money 
is  even  spent  on  candles  for  the  Day  of  Purification. 
In  short,  the  money  and  the  receipt  of  the  degree 
are  administered  in  such  a  fashion  that  those  who  do 
the  least  service  for  the  students  receive  the  most 
spoils  from  them.  By  an  ordinance  then,  sire,  abol- 
ish that  numerous  troop  of  professors,  select  worthy 
and  competent  men  as  lecturers,  remove  those  ex- 
penses and  charges,  not  only  the  unnecessary,  but 
even  the  former  fees,  for  it  is  an  unworthy  thing  that 
the  road  to  knowledge  should  be  closed  and  for- 
bidden to  the  poor,  no  matter  how  learned  and  well 
educated  they  may  be,  and  it  cannot  at  present  be 
otherwise,  because  of  the  expenses  and  necessary 
charges.  Sire,  but  say  the  word.  Numerous  con- 
vents, monasteries,  colleges,  and  canonries  of  the  city 
of  Paris  will  think  themselves  happy  and  greatly 
honored  to  furnish  these  expenses  and  will  easily 
and  promptly  do  so,  if  only  you  command  them. 
Bring  it  to  pass  that  the  only  legitimate  expenditures 
for  the  scholar  shall  be  those  of  his  living,  dress, 


82  PETER   RAMUS 

books,  work,  vigils,  and  the  pursuit  of  letters  for  the 
greater  part  of  his  life."  1 

He  gives  a  further  description  of  the  abuses.  The 
infinitude  of  masters  not  only  has  engendered  in- 
finite expense,  but  has  produced  neglect  in  the  matter 
and  method  of  instruction.  The  faculty  of  arts  is 
perhaps  the  least  reprehensible  in  this  direction,  but 
the  abandonment  of  the  public  lectures  in  the 
Rue  du  Fouarre  2  and  the  substitution  of  inferior 
private  instruction  by  -each  college  has  been  unfor- 
tunate. It  is  especially  to  be  regretted  that  the 
teachers  of  philosophy  use  the  questioning  method  in 
Aristotle  and  require  nothing  in  the  way  of  real 
practice  in  the  use  of  logic.  The  grammarians  and 
rhetoricians,  however,  have  set  them  an  example,  as 
they  have  come  to  discuss  the  rules  but  little,  and 
train  their  pupils  through  reading  and  imitating 
good  authors.3  The  situation  is  still  worse  in  the  pro- 
fessional faculties.  In  the  faculty  of  law,  only  canon 
law  is  taught,  and  the  civil  la^v  is  entirely  neglected. 
The  professors  of  medicine  and  theology  are  even  too 
lazy  to  do  anything  more  than  preside  at  the  presen- 
tation of  theses  or  at  public  debates,  and  out  of  their 

1  Op.  tit.,  pp.  13  ff.    Cf.  pp.  25, 26, 34,  etc. 

2  See  pp.  13  ff.  3  Op.  cit.,  pp.  35  ff. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  83 

enormous  salaries  pay  a  few  ecus  to  any  bachelor 
or  newly  made  master  that  they  can  get  to  do  their 
work  for  them.  For  the  same  reason,  in  medicine  the 
practical  exercises  in  searching  after  and  analyzing 
herbs  and  simples,  in  experimenting  with  their  effects 
upon  the  body,  and  in  discussing  symptoms  and  reme- 
dies are  totally  neglected;  and  the  theologians  are 
likewise  too  lazy  to  be  anything  but  blissfully  igno- 
rant of  the  Scriptures.1 

The  remedy  of  Ramus-for  both  this  exorbitant 
cost  and  this  inferiority  of  university  training  is 
exceedingly  simple,  but  apparently  very  revolution- 
ary. He  proposes  that  the  king  appoint  a  small 
number  of  public  professors,  who  shall  be  paid  by  the 
state,  and  teach  the  various  branches  of  philosophy, 
law,  medicine,  and  theology,  and  lay  aside  all  dispu- 
tations and  barren  argumentations.  Thus  he  would 
have  strong,  regular,  and  gratuitous  instruction  given 
in  all  the  faculties.  Specifically,  he  would  establish^ 
in  the  faculty  of  arts  a  chair  in  mathematics  and  add 
work  in  'physics' ;  in  the  faculty  of  law,  instruction  in 
civil  law ;  in  the  faculty  of  medicine,  chairs  of  botany, 
anatomy,  and  pharmacy,  and  the  genuine  practice 
of  medicine  under  the  supervision  of  the  professors; 

1  Op.  cit.,  pp.  61  and  82. 


84  PETER   RAMUS 

and  finally,  in  theology,  besides  the  regular  lectures, 
he  would  give  the  students  a  training  in  the  study 
of  the  Bible  and  the  interpretation  of  both  testaments 
in  their  original  languages.  Further,  he  suggests  that 
a  line  of  demarcation  be  drawn  between  these  higher 
subjects  and  the  lower  work  in  grammar,  rhetoric, 
and  dialectic,  and  that  the  latter  studies  be  relegated 
to  the  colleges,  which,  after  the  establishment  of 
public  chairs,  would  otherwise  be  without  a  function. 
These  suggestions  were  badly  received  at  the  time 
Ramus  offered  them,  but  they  were  largely  .carried 
out  in  the  succeeding  reigns  of  Henry  III  and  Henry 
IV.  In  the  suggested  distinction  between  secondary 
and  superior  instruction,  however,  he  anticipated  a 
movement  that  was  not  realized  until  after  the 
French  Revolution. 

Throughout  this  treatise  on  academic  reform  the 
attitude  of  Ramus  toward  the  theologians  and  the 
clergy,  together  with  his  insistence  upon  a  purified 
Bible  and  the  careful  study  of  the  Scriptures,  shows 
how  much  further  he  had  progressed  in  Calvinism. 
In  every  reform  suggested  he  now  appears  in  spirit 
to  be  a  zealous  Protestant.  His  religious  practices 
reveal  a  similar  change.  This  is  seen  in  the  character 
of  the  worship  in  his  college  chapel.  He  here  modi- 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  85 

lied  the  nature  of  the  sermons,  abolished  services  for 
the  dead  and  prayers  to  the  saints,  and  followed  in 
general  a  service  very  different  from  the  orthodox 
one.1  This  afforded  his  enemies  a  hold  upon  him 
that  they  had  never  been  able  to  secure  through  his 
heresies  in  philosophy  and  rhetoric. 

Meanwhile,  the  bitterness  between  Catholic  and 
Huguenot  had  been  increasing.  Owing  to  the  politi- 
cal ambitions  of  the  Guises  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
'  Huguenots  of  State '  on  the  other,  the  chancellor  of 
the  realm  had  been  unable  to  bring  about  the  peace 
and  harmony  for  which  he  had  striven.  The  massacre 
at  Vassy  occurred  (1562),  and  became  the  signal  for 
the  outbreak  of  the  first  of  the  civil  wars.2  The  out- 
raged Huguenots,  despairing  of  justice,  flew  to  arms, 
and  France  was  deluged  with  blood.  In  July  of  this 
year  the  war  governor  of  Paris  banished  all  Calvinists 
from  the  city,  and  Ramus  was  forced  to  flee.  He  left 
the  administration  of  the  College  of  Presles  to  one  of 
his  professors,  but  the  absent  principal  was  declared 
a  traitor,  and  his  office  was  turned  over  to  a  more 
orthodox,  if  somewhat  ignorant,  incumbent.3  Safe 

1  Nancel,  op.  cit.,  pp.  71  f.  *  Sec  p.  12. 

5  See  Du  Boulay,  op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  p.  659;  Felibien,  Histoire  de  la 
ville  de  Paris,  t.  II,  p.  1084. 


86  PETER   RAMUS 

conduct  was,  however,  assured  Ramus  by  the  king 
and  queen-mother,  and  he  found  asylum  in  the  royal 
palace  at  Fontainebleau.1  Amid  the  beautiful  sur- 
roundings of  this  place  and  the  treasures  of  the  royal 
library,  he  forgot  everything  except  his  studies,  until 
enemies  discovered  his  whereabouts.  Then  he  es- 
caped death  at  their  hands  only  by  fleeing  again,  and 
for  a  time  was  pursued  from  pillar  to  post.  Finally, 
in  March  of  the  next  year  (1563),  the  peace  of 
Amboise  enabled  him  to  enter  Paris  again,  and  live  in 
quiet  for  a  few  years. 

Upon  his  return  Ramus  without  difficulty  got 
back  his  principalship  at  Presles  and  his  chair  in  the 
Royal  College.  At  the  beginning  of  the  academic 
year  he  delivered  his  famous  address  upon  the  twelve 
years  of  his  work  as  a  professor  in  the  College  of 
France.2  In  it  he  tells  of  his  intention  to  gather  up 
the  threads  of  his  writing  once  more  and  indulges  the 
vain  hope  that  war  will  never  again  disturb  the  liberal 
arts,  'the  daughters  of  Peace.'  During  the  next  few 
years  he  published  his  works  on  physics  and  mathe- 
matics already  mentioned  3  and  completed  a  work 

1  Freigius,  op.  cit.,  pp.  26  flf. ;  Ramus  himself  in  his  Oratio  de  sua 
professione  also  furnishes  us  with  full  details  of  his  stay  here. 

2  Oratio  de  sua  professione  liber alium  artium  (1563). 

3  See  pp.  61  f. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  87 

upon  the  metaphysics 1  of  Aristotle.  But  the  theologi- 
cal and  medical  faculties  could  not  forget  his  address 
upon  the  reform  of  the  university,  and  were  on  the 
lookout  to  catch  him  upon  the  hip.  More  implacable 
than  any  other  was  his  inveterate  enemy,  Carpen- 
tarius,  who  constantly  hounded  him  with  pamphlets. 
To  that  blatant  individual  Ramus,  as  usual,  paid  no 
attention,  but  his  distinguished  pupil  Arnaud  d'Ossat, 
afterward  a  cardinal,  did  reply  with  a  strong  defense  of 
the  dialectic  of  his  master,2  which  Carpentarius  an- 
swered only  with  a  storm  of  abuse.  Moreover,  the 
Jesuits,3  who  had  been  vainly  endeavoring  to  have 
their  College  of  Clermont  recognized  by  the  univer- 
sity, had  at  length  found  a  complaisant  rector 4 
who  was  willing  to  issue  the  'letters  of  scholarity.' 5 
Ramus  was  among  those  who  were  active  in  their 
opposition  to  the  recognition  of  this  order,  and  in  the 
suit  before  the  parlement  that  resulted,  he  was  one  of 
the  two  advocates  chosen  to  oppose  them.  But  the 

1  Scholarum    melaphysicarum    libri    quattuordecim    in    totidem 
metaphysicos  libros  Aristotelis  (1565). 

2  Expositio  Arnaldi  Ossati  in  disputationem  Jacobi  Carpentarii 
de  methodo  (1564). 

3  See  p.  3. 

4  Julian  de  Saint  Germain  (1564). 

5  Crevier,  op.  cil.,  t.  VI,  pp.  165  f. 


88  PETER   RAMUS 

parlement  was  afraid  of  the  Guises,  who  allied  them- 
selves with  the  cause  of  the  Jesuits,1  and  yielded  to 
pressure.  This  brought  Ramus  further  enemies, 
whereas  Carpentarius,  who  had  toadied  to  these 
powerful  foes  during  the  contest,  won  over  thereafter 
the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine  as  his  'Maecenas.' 

A  more  formidable  controversy  for  Ramus  was 
occasioned  by  the  seating  of  Carpentarius  in  a  chair 
of  mathematics  at  the  College  of  France,  although 
he  was  quite  ignorant  of  the  subject.  The  professor- 
ship had  through  politics  been  given  in  the  first  place 
to  Dampestre  Cosel,  a  mediocre  mathematician 
from  Sicily,  who  could  speak  neither  Latin  nor 
French,  but  upon  the  request  of  Ramus  and  his  other 
colleagues  that  he  be  examined,  this  incumbent  un- 
dertook to  sell  the  position  to  Carpentarius.  This 
was  an  unheard  of  proposition,  but  was  probably  sug- 
gested by  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine  and  connived  at 
by  the  court.2  Although  ignorant  both  of  Euclid 
and  of  the  language  in  which  that  author  wrote, 
Carpentarius  was  appointed  in  February,  1566,  and 
refused  to  submit  to  the  examination  which  the  king 
had  established  by  edict.  When  the  case  was  brought 

1  Du  Boulay,  op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  p.  521. 

•See  Or  olio  initio  SUCK  professionis  habita  (1566),  fol.  7  v. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  89 

before  the  parlement,  the  professor-elect  admitted  his 
ignorance,  but  declared  there  were  other  subjects  upon 
which  he  could  temporarily  lecture  and  that  he  could 
become  posted  on  mathematics  'within  three  days.' l 
He  further  pleaded  his  service  to  the  university, 
Catholicism,  and  the  Aristotelian  philosophy  so  effec- 
tively that  the  parlement  provisionally  confirmed 
the  appointment  and  gave  him  three  months  within 
which  to  prepare  himself  to  teach  mathematics.2 
But  even  these  terms  were  not  favorable  enough  for 
Carpentarius.  Accordingly  he  induced  the  corrupt 
recorder  to  change  the  decree  of  parlement  so  that  it 
would  read  that  he  should  begin  the  study  of  Euclid 
within  three  months  and  set  no  limit  to  the  tune  when 
he  should  be  prepared  to  lecture,  and  that,  instead  of 
teaching  mathematics  and  philosophy,  he  should 
teach  mathematics  or  philosophy.  As  a  result, 
Carpentarius  began  by  lecturing  on  Aristotle's  De 
Coelo  and  then  turned  to  the  Commentaries  on  Plato 
by  Alcinous,  and  never  touched  mathematics.  He 
further  presumed  to  demand  a  fee  from  his  students, 
a  proceeding  quite  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  College 

1  Schol.  Math.,  1. 1,  p.  21. 

•*  Collect,  preefat.,  p.  544;  Du  Boulay,  op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  pp.  650  ff. ; 
Schol.  Math.,  1.  H,  p.  63. 


90  PETER   RAMUS 

of  France  and  hitherto  unknown  in  the  history  of  the 
institution.  This  last  step  was  too  much  for  Ramus 
to  endure,  and  he  straightway  addressed  a  Remon- 
strance to  the  Privy  Council.1 

The  fear  of  the  Guises,  however,  was  too  strong  to 
permit  any  appeal  to  be  effective,  and  Ramus,  for 
all  his  pains,  succeeded  only  in  changing  the  envy  of 
his  rival  to  a  mortal  hatred.  The  spite  of  Carpenta- 
rius  soon  showed  itself  in  a  series  of  libels  and  accu- 
sations against  Ramus,2  which  grew  so  scurrilous 
and  serious  that  the  reformer  was  forced  to  have  his 
defamer  prosecuted  and  forced  to  retract.3  There- 
upon Carpentarius  endeavored  to  have  him  mobbed  or 
assassinated,  but,  thanks  to  the  courage  and  presence 
of  mind  of  Ramus,  these  attempts  also  failed. 

About  this  time  (September,  1567)  the  Guises  had 
succeeded  in  fanning  another  civil  war  into  flames. 
Ramus  escaped  the  massacre  that  erisued  by  fleeing 
to  the  camp  of  the  Protestants  at  St.  Denis,  and 
while  not  taking  part,  he  was  a  spectator  at  the  in- 

1  Remonstrance  au  conseil  prive  (1567).    The  most  important 
portions  of  this  are  quoted  by  Waddington,  pp.  411-417.    It 
gives  a  good  account  of  the  details  that  have  been  outlined  above. 

2  See  Jacobi  Carpentarii  admonitio  ad  Thessalum  (Paris,  1567); 
J.  Aurali  Poematia,  1.  IV,  pp.  275  ff. 

3  Nancel,  p.  63. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND    DEATH  91 

decisive  battle  that  took  place  there.  He  did,  how- 
ever, render  a  conspicuous  service  to  the  Protes- 
tants through  his  eloquence  in  inducing  the  Ger- 
man troopers  who  had  been  summoned  to  the  aid  of 
Conde  and  Coligny  to  continue  to  serve  for  less 
than  one  third  the  sum  they  had  been  promised.1 
Soon  after  this  the  Peace  of  1568  enabled  Ramus  to 
reenter  Paris  and  take  up  his  duties  once  more,  but 
he  was  scarcely  settled  before  he  perceived  another 
storm  brewing.  He  thereupon  persuaded  the  king  to 
grant  him  leave  of  absence  to  visit  the  chief  universi- 
ties of  Germany  and  Switzerland,  as  he  had  long  hoped 
to  do.  Before  leaving,  however,  he  drew  up  his  will 
and  patriotically  left  the  bulk  of  his  fortune  to  found 
a  chair  of  mathematics  at  the  College  of  France.2 
He  then  wrote  a  most  eloquent  Farewell  Letter  to  the 
University  of  Paris? 

The  travels  of  Ramus  during  the  next  two  years 
(1568-1570)  were  nominally  a  species  of  thinly  dis- 
guised expatriation,  but  they  soon  took  on  the 
character  of  almost  a  triumphal  journey  and  a  matter 

1  Brantome,  Hommes  ittustres,  disc.  LXVI ;  De  Thou,  op.  cit., 
1.  XLII. 

2  This  will  is  given  in  full  by  Waddington,  op.  cit.,  pp.  326-328. 

3  Pet r us  Ramus  rectori  el  Academic  Parisiensi  (1868).      See 
Collect.  Prof.,  epist.,  etc.,  p.  206. 


Q2  PETER   RAMUS 

of  great  moment  to  the  entire  scholastic  world.1  A 
review  of  them  in  detail  would  furnish  a  very  fair 
picture  of  the  intellectual  and  religious  activities  in 
some  of  the  most  important  centers  in  northern 
humanism  and  the  Reformation.2  With  two  of  his 
pupils  as  secretaries,  Ramus  visited  a  large  part  of 
Germany  and  Switzerland,  and  conferred  with  the 
most  renowned  scholars  in  classics,  mathematics, 
logic,  and  especially  theology.  He  continued  after- 
ward to  correspond  with  those  he  visited,  and  the 
letters,  as  far  as  they  have  been  preserved,  form  a 
thesaurus  of  source  material  on  the  movements  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  The  'French  Plato/  as  Ramus 
was  called,  was  received  with  great  consideration  by 
all  the  universities  and  cities  to  which  he  came.  At 
times,  of  course,  he  found  opponents,  but  he  made 
more  partisans,  and  the  dissemination  of  his  philos- 
ophy left  academic  Germany  divided  in  two  camps, 
the  Aristotelians  and  the  Ramists.  His  reputation 
was  fully  maintained,  and  efforts  were  made  at  sev- 
eral places  to  hold  him  permanently.  Well-endowed 
chairs  were  offered  him  in  the  Palatinate,  Westphalia, 

1  See  especially  the  account  of  Banosius  (pp.  26  ff.),  one  of  the 
secretaries. 
1  See  pp.  5  ff. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  93 

and  even  Poland,  Transylvania,  and  Hungary.  While 
there  is  reason  to  believe  he  might  have  liked  to 
lecture  at  Strassburg,  Heidelberg,  or  some  other  uni- 
versity near  the  French  border,  in  order  to  impress 
Paris  with  his  overwhelming  success,  he  generally 
declined  the  offers  that  were  made  him.  It  may  be 
that  he  did  this  for  the  same  reason  he  had  assigned 
when  called  by  the  University  of  Bologna  half  a 
dozen  years  before :  "I  am  a  Frenchman,  and  it  is 
through  the  favor  of  the  king  of  France  that  I  have 
pursued  my  studies  for  many  a  long  year.  I  belong, 
therefore,  entirely  to  my  country  and  my  king."  * 

Under  the  safe  conduct  of  the  king,2  Ramus 
moved  alnT^st^rjectly  east  across  France,  and  came 
first  to  Strassburg.  Here  he  was  met  by  a  large 
delegation  and  acclaimed  like  a  prince  of  the  blood. 
He  was  entertained  at  the  home  of  the  famous 
humanist,  Sturm,3  with  whom  he  had  corresponded. 
The  two  friends  were  now  able  to  discuss  personally 

1  CoUectan.  prafat.,  pp.  195  and  198.  *Op.  cit.,  p.  190. 

*  It  was  supposed  until  recently  that  Sturm  and  Ascham  were 
complete  converts  to  Ramism,  but  Guggenheim  (Beitrage,  pp.  141  ff .) 
has  shown  by  a  letter  that  passed  between  the  two  scholars  that 
while  they  were  influenced  by  the  new  dialectic  and  were  some- 
what sympathetic,  they  did  not  altogether  approve  his  criticism 
of  Aristotle  and  Cicero. 


94  PETER   RAMUS 

the  study  of  the  liberal  arts,  the  education  of  youth, 
the  nature  and  effect  of  rewards,  and  other  problems 
in  school  and  educational  work  generally.  The  pro- 
fessors of  the  university  and  the  teachers  in  the  gym- 
nasium *  gave  Ramus  a  public  proof  of  their  esteem 
by  tendering  him  a  banquet. 

Next,  the  reformer  followed  the  Rhine  south  to 
Basel.2  He  visited  Freiburg  on  the  way,  and,  meet- 
ing there  the  mathematician,  Schreckfuchs,  studied 
in  his  library  a  marvelous  celestial  globe  of  brass 
arranged  according  to  the  system  of  Copernicus. 
At  Basel  he  sojourned  for  the  rest  of  1568  and  most  of 
the  following  year.  Here  he  met  Freigius,  professor 
of  rhetoric,  who  became  one  of  his  most  devoted  dis- 
ciples.3 He  also  found  a  number  of  his  former  pupils, 
including  the  printer,  Hervagius,  and  the  professors 
Jerome  Wolf  and  Theodor  Zwinger,  and  became 
acquainted  with  the  grammarian,  Felix  Platter,4 

1  See  p.  3. 

2  The  details  of  his  visit  here  are  taken  mostly  from  his  eulogy 
on  the  people  of  Basel  in  his  work  known  as  Basilea.     See  pp.  99  f . 

3  We  are  indebted  to  Freigius  for  one  of  our  most  authentic 
accounts  of  the  life  and  work  of  Ramus.     See  footnote  i  on  p.  19. 

4  This  was  the  son  of  that  Thomas  Platter,  who,  at  his  son's  re- 
quest, wrote  the  autobiography  that  has  shed  so  much  light  on 
the  schools  and  education  of  the  sixteenth  century.     See  Monroe's 
Thomas  Platter. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND    DEATH  95 

and  the  theologian,  Samuel  Grynaeus,  and  with  many 
scholars  and  men  of  prominence.  The  hostess  of 
Ramus  in  Basel,  however,  was  the  pious  Catherine 
Petit.  This  lady  had  entertained  Calvin  while  he 
was  writing  his  Institutes  of  Christianity*  and  was 
rilled  with  memories  of  that  great  leader.  Ramus 
was  also  much  impressed  at  Basel  by  a  memorial  of 
another  famous  reformer,  —  the  monument  erected 
to  the  wise  and  pious  (Ecolampadius.  At  this  center 
of  Protestantism,  he  seized  the  opportunity  for  in- 
creasing his  knowledge  of  theology  by  listening  to  the 
lectures  of  Sulzer 2  and  Coccius  on  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  in  the  original  languages,  and  here  laid 
the  groundwork  of  his  posthumous  Commentaries  on 
the  Christian  Religion?  He  likewise  made  it  con- 
venient, before  leaving  this  part  of  Switzerland,  to 
confer  at  Zurich  with  Bullinger  and  Simler,  leaders 
in  Swiss  Protestantism,  and  get  their  advice  and  that 
of  the  other  theologians  upon  his  projected  treatise. 
Ramus  did  not,  however,  give  all  his  productive 

1  See  p.  10. 

2  His  pleasant  relations  at  Basel  were  marred  only  by  a  contro- 
versy with  this  same  Sulzer,  and  probably  for  this  reason  he  alludes 
to  the  tolerant  Brandmuller  as  the  real  successor  of  CEcolampadius. 
See  Bernus,  Pierre  Ramus  a  Bdle  (Paris,  1890). 

3  Commentariorum  de  religione  Christiana  libri  quattuor  (1576). 


96  PETER   RAMUS 

time  in  Switzerland  to  theology.  While  at  Basel, 
one  of  the  centers  of  printing,  he  produced  two  of  his 
chief  treatises  on  mathematics,  and  combined  his 
views  on  grammar,  rhetoric,  dialectic,  physics,  and 
metaphysics  into  a  single  work,  Studies  in  the  Liberal 
Arts.1  Here  also  were  published  the  letters  that  had 
sprung  from  a  rather  unpleasant  controversy  over 
dialectic  with  Schegk,2  professor  of  philosophy  at 
Tubingen.  It  was  from  Basel  also  that  he  wrote 
Sturm  he  would  accept  a  position  in  the  gymnasium, 
in  order  to  make  known  his  method.  But  in  spite 
of  the  recommendation  of  that  scholar  and  the  Protes- 
tant tendencies  of  Ramus,  his  services  were  declined 
by  the  conservative  authorities,  on  the  ground  that 
he  was  'not  an  Aristotelian.' 

He  visited  other  centers  in  Switzerland  and  met 
many  prominent  scholars,  theologians,  and  reformers 
in  each,  but  in  no  other  place  was  his  stay  very  long. 
He  next  went  north  along  the  Rhine  to  Heidelberg, 
where  he  sojourned  for  some  time  at  the  home  of 
Tremellius,  the  professor  of  Hebrew,  from  whom  he 

1  S choice  in  liberates  dries  (1569). 

-  P.  Kami  et  Jacobi  Schecii  epistola,  in  quibus  de  artis  logicce 
institutione  agitur  (1569).  Two  years  later  at  Lausanne  he  pub- 
lished on  the  same  subject  Petri  Kami  Defensio  pro  Aristotde 
adversus  Jac.  Schecium. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  97 

acquired  a  complete  defense  of  the  reformed  theol- 
ogy.1 He  met  here  also  the  leading  professors  and 
councilors  of  the  Palatinate,  and  was  invited  by  the 
elector,  Frederick  III,  to  accept  a  temporary  place 
in  the  university.2  While  the  faculty  of  'arts'  pro- 
fessed to  admire  Ramus  personally,  they  resisted 
this  appointment  to  the  utmost.  Although  devoted 
Protestants,  they  were  still  too  conservative  to  sym- 
pathize with  a  man  who  taught  his  own  philosophy, 
which  was  quite  'opposed  to  the  truth  and  the  doc- 
trine of  Aristotle.'  The  sovereign  exerted  his  author- 
ity to  the  utmost,  and,  in  spite  of  repeated  remon- 
strances, Ramus  was  announced  to  lecture  on  Cicero's 
oration,  For  Marcellus.  Two  factions  also  appeared 
among  the  students,  and  every  obstacle  was  thrown 
in  the  way  of  his  lecturing,3  but  in  the  end,  owing  to 
his  eloquence,  his  instruction  on  this  subject  was 
enthusiastically  received.  When,  however,  by  spe- 
cial request,  Ramus  undertook  to  lecture  on  dialectic, 
a  more  serious  insurrection  broke  out  in  the  fanatical 

1  Letter  to  Sturm,  October  or  November,  1569. 

2  Letter  to  Zwinger,  October  30,  1569. 

3  Even  the  steps  to  the  lecture  platform  were  taken  away,  and 
Ramus  mounted  to  his  rostrum  only  by  the  aid  of  one  of  the  French 
students,  and  the  lecture  was  at  first  interrupted  with  hisses,  hoots, 
and  stamping. 


98  PETER   RAMUS 

faculty,  and  the  elector  was  forced  to  suspend  the  lec- 
tures for  a  time.  Whereupon,  writes  Ramus  to  his 
friend  Zwinger :  - 

"Seizing  the  opportunity  of  disengaging  myself,  I 
told  the  elector  that  there  was  some  ground  for  the 
opposition,  since,  if  I  should  continue  to  teach  a 
month  longer,  a  revolution  in  studies  would  neces- 
sarily result.  However,  I  remarked  how  surprising 
it  was  hi  my  judgment  that,  when  the  legitimate  child, 
the  noble  daughter  of  the  University  of  Heidelberg, 
was  brought  back  by  me  to  her  own  home,  she  should 
be  treated  as  a  stranger,  and  repudiated  by  the  pro- 
fessors of  the  university.  The  prince  asked  my 
meaning,  and  I  answered  that  I  had  reference  to  the 
true  dialectic,  as  it  had  formerly  been  interpreted  at 
Heidelberg  by  Agricola  with  the  applause  of  Ger- 
many, France,  and  Italy."  l 

However,  this  very  fear  of  the  Ramistic  dialectic 
and  strenuous  opposition  to  it  at  both  Strassburg  and 
Heidelberg,  the  great  centers  of  humanism,  shows 
how  great  its  influence  was  becoming.  In  fact,  the 
visit  of  Ramus  to  Germany  and  Switzerland  must  be 
regarded  as  epoch-making  in  the  history  of  human- 
ism, Aristotelianism,  and  theology.  His  experience 

1  Letter  to  Zwinger,  January  23,  1570. 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  99 

in  other  places  was  similar  to  that  already  described. 
When  he  left  Heidelberg,  a  couple  of  months  later,  he 
first  journeyed  north  to  Frankfurt,  and  thence  south- 
east to  Nuremberg  and  Augsburg.  At  all  these 
places  he  held  intercourse  with  the  leading  humanis- 
tic, mathematical,  and  scientific  scholars,  and  visited 
the  chief  libraries  and  museums.  In  Augsburg  he 
became  acquainted  with  the  famous  Tycho  Brahe, 
who,  although  but  little  more  than  a  boy  at  the  time, 
had  already  made  numerous  astronomical  observa- 
tions and  begun  the  hypotheses  upon  which  his  later 
renown  rests. 

Now,  however,  hearing  rumors  of  approaching 
peace,  Ramus  hastened  south  rapidly  through  Swit- 
zerland to  Geneva,  in  the  hope  of  reaching  France 
sooner.  He  was  kindly  received  by  Geneva,  although 
considerable  opposition  to  his  dialectic  had  arisen 
through  his  correspondence  with  Theodore  Beza,  the 
successor  of  Calvin  in  the  administration  of  the  city. 
Upon  request  he  gave  a  brief  course  here  upon 
Cicero's  Catilinarian  orations  according  to  his 
method.  He  made  a  profound  impression,  and  many 
of  the  students  adopted  his  logic  at  the  time.  Ramus 
next  went  a  little  out  of  his  way  to  Lausanne  to  pub- 
lish some  of  his  works,  especially  the  discourse  in 


100  PETER  RAMUS 

honor  of  the  people  of  Basel.1  In  this  city  again  he 
met  a  number  of  humanists  and  theologians  and  gave 
lectures  on  dialectic,  but  soon  felt  impelled  to  start 
back  to  Paris. 

Upon  his  return  to  the  university,  Ramus  found 
that  his  enemies  had  not  been  idle  during  his  ab- 
sence.2 In  the  face  of  the  general  amnesty,  they  had 
induced  the  timorous  king  to  interpret  the  agreement 
in  such  a  way  as  to  bring  Ramus  under  the  head  of 
'deserters  from  the  faith/  who  had  forfeited  their 
privileges  in  Paris.  Two  obscure  men  had  been 
installed  in  his  positions  at  the  College  of  Presles 
and  the  College  of  France,  respectively,1  and  realizing 
that  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine  had  abandoned  him 
to  his  persecutors,  he  appealed  to  his  old  comrade 
and  protector  in  this  letter  of  protest :  — 

"It  was  in  your  early  youth,  nearly  thirty  years 
ago,  that  our  mutual  attachment  arose.  I  was 
myself  very  young  then,  but  since  those  days  I 
have  never  ceased  to  publish  and  celebrate  through 
all  the  world  your  friendship  for  me.  However, 
such  is  the  misfortune  of  the  times  that  to-day 
certain  evil-minded  persons  go  about  declaring  that 

i  ,  *  De  Thou,  1.  XLIV  to  the  year  1568. 

2  Du  Boulay,  op.  tit.,  t.  VI,  pp.  658  ff.  and  712  ff. 


CONVERSION,   PERSECUTION,    AND  DEATH  IOI 

the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine  is  removing  Peter  Ramus 
not  only  from  his  chair  at  the  Royal  College,  to  which 
he  was  appointed  by  King  Henry  upon  your  nomi- 
nation, but  also  from  the  principalship  of  the  College 
of  Presles,  —  that  is  to  say,  from  the  fruit  and 
recompense  of  all  my  former  labors.  After  complet- 
ing my  study  and  reform  of  the  first  five  liberal  arts, 
and  showing  an  equal  zeal,  or  even  greater,  for  the 
advancement  of  the  last  two,  I  had  reason  to  expect 
a  different  treatment.  Wherefore,  in  the  name  of  the 
white  hairs  that  advise  us  both  that  death  is  not  far 
distant,  do  not  suffer  the  end  of  our  relations  to  be 
so  vastly  different  from  the  commencement,  and  from 
a  smiling  beginning  to  close  the  whole  course  of  our 
years  with  so  sad  a  finale.  Do  better  than  this; 
condemn  me  rather  to  the  hard  and  unremitting  task 
of  forging  and  polishing  the  sciences.  I  would  cheer- 
fully do  more  than  that,  and  such  a  vengeance  would 
be  more  becoming  your  magnanimity  and  high-mind- 
edness."  1 

But  he  was  not  destined  to  receive  either  favor  or 
satisfaction  from  his  former  patron.  In  reply,  the 
cardinal  evaded  the  issue  by  reproaching  him  in  a 
friendly  way  for  not  coming  to  see  him,  and  then 

1  See  Collect,  prof  at.,  epist.,  pp.  254  ff. 


lOt  PETER   RAMUS 

accused  him  of  ingratitude,  impiety,  and  rebellion.1 
Taking  this  as  a  sincere  expression,  Ramus  wrote 
another  letter.  He  explained  his  not  seeing  the  car- 
dinal in  person  on  the  ground  that  he  would  have  run 
grave  risks  in  so  doing.  As  to  'ingratitude,'  he 
declared  that  he  had, '  through  his  own  labors  and  the 
sweat  of  his  brow,'  shown  himself  worthy  of  the  chair 
bestowed  upon  him,  and  that  he  would  long  since 
have  resigned  and  accepted  the  better  endowed  chair 
at  Bologna,  had  he  not  hoped  by  remaining  to  show 
his  appreciation  of  past  favors.  As  to  'impiety,'  his 
religious  change  should  not  be  considered  an  apos- 
tasy, but  a  return  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  and  the 
primitive  church  which  the  cardinal  himself  had 
praised  at  the  Colloquy  of  Poissy.  With  regard  to 
'rebellion,'  he  insisted  that  his  flight  to  St.  Denis 
was  the  only  way  in  which  he  could  escape  assassina- 
tion and  that  he  had  not  borne  arms  in  the  battle 2 
against  the  government,  and  that  he  had  soon  left  the 
country  for  his  visit  to  Germany  and  Switzerland. 
He  further  besought  the  cardinal  that,  instead  of 
descending  to  such  petty  matters,  he  should  allow  him 
to  complete  his  treatises  on  the  two  remaining  liberal 
arts  and  then  devote  the  rest  of  his  life  to  a  study  of 

1  See  footnote  on  p.  101.  2  See  pp.  90  f. 


CONVERSION,  PERSECUTION,  AND  DEATH     103 

the  Scriptures,  and  that  the  prelate  himself  should 
turn  to  the  more  holy  occupation  of  establishing 
through  the  income  of  one  of  his  numerous  abbeys  an 
association  of  scholars  who  should  carefully  translate 
both  testaments  into  Latin  and  the  vernacular,  and 
make  a  systematic  arrangement  of  the  principles  of 
Christian  doctrine  and  practice.1  But  the  intriguing 
cardinal  had  no  time  for  such  an  ultramundane 
program,  and  began  to  find  his  old  friend  not 
only  a  nuisance,  but  possibly  an  obstacle  to  his 
ambitions.  Without  more  ado,  he  refrained  from 
interfering  with  the  program  of  the  reformer's  ene- 
mies, and  on  the  i$th  of  December,  1570,  Ramus 
was  excluded  from  active  teaching  and  administra- 
tion in  the  university. 

In  these  extremities  Ramus  thought  of  retiring  to 
Geneva,  where  many  would  have  been  glad  to  see  him 
installed  as  a  professor,  and  he  asked  a  friend  to  sound 
Beza,  the  head  of  the  government  of  that  city.  But 
Beza  clearly,  though  politely,  repulsed  his  overtures 
upon  the  excuse  that  there  was  no  vacancy  in  the 
faculty  and  the  university  had  no  funds  to  establish 
another  chair.  He  added  what  was  probably  his 
real  animus,  that  he  was  inflexibly  attached  to  Arii- 

1  See  Collect,  preefat.,  epist.,  pp.  255  ff. 


104  PETER   RAMUS 

totle  in  logic  and  all  other  studies.  Ramus  was  thus 
forced  to  give  up  all  hopes  in  this  direction,  and  fell 
into  the  depths  of  despair.  But  at  this  moment 
another  old  schoolmate,  the  Cardinal  of  Bourbon,  who 
had  become  the  chancellor  of  the  university,  inter- 
ceded for  the  reformer  with  the  queen-mother,  and 
secured  for  him  an  honorable  compromise.  It  was 
arranged  that  he  should  have  his  titles  as  principal 
at  Presles  and  as  professor  in  the  Royal  College  re- 
stored to  him,  and  that  his  salary  in  the  latter  capac- 
ity should  even  be  doubled,  but  that  he  should  retire 
from  active  service  and  give  his  time  to  writing  and 
translation. 

Ramus  joyfully  accepted  these  conditions,  and  in 
1571  settled  down  at  the  College  of  Presles  to  com- 
plete and  revise  all  the  liberal  arts.  But  his  perse- 
cutors were  not  yet  satisfied.  They  continually 
maintained  that  the  very  presence  of  a  Huguenot  pro- 
fessor was  keeping  proper-minded  parents  from  send- 
ing their  sons  to  a  university  infected  with  heresy.1 
Carpentarius  further  attempted  to  persuade  his  col- 
leagues in  the  College  of  France  that  the  reputation  of 
having  a  heretic  on  the  staff  was  injuring  the  insti- 
tution, and  threatened  them  with  the  wrath  of  the 
1  Du  Boulay,  op.  cit.,  t.  VI,  p.  669. 


CONVERSION     PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  105 

Cardinal  of  Lorraine  and  the  suppression  of  the  col- 
lege, in  case  the  offender  were  not  expelled. l 

It  must  have  become  more  and  more  evident  that 
Ramus  was  doomed.  His  enemies  would  obviously 
be  satisfied  with  nothing  short  of  his  banishment  or 
death.  Among  those  who  realized  this  was  his 
friend,  Jean  de  Montluc,  Bishop  of  Valence,  who 
seems  to  have  been  a  Protestant  at  heart  and  often 
proved  a  good  friend  to  the  reformers.2  It  is  not 
unlikely  that  he  had  heard  rumors  of  an  impending 
massacre  of  the  Huguenots,  and  had  especial  fears  for 
Ramus.  At  any  rate,  it  is  known  that  he  tried  to 
attach  that  reformer  to  his  embassy,  when  on  the 
1 7th  of  August,  1572,  he  was  sent  to  persuade  the 
Poles  to  accept  the  French  king's  brother  as  their 
sovereign.  Ramus  had  some  scruples  about  under- 
taking the  mission3  and  thus  was  left  in  the  city 
during  the  terrible  slaughter  of  St.  Bartholomew's, 
which  began  just  a  week  later. 

It  was  not,  however,  until  the  third  day,  the 
twenty-sixth,  when  most  of  the  excesses  were  over, 
that  Ramus  met  his  death,  and  the  outrage  seems  to 

1  Carpentarius,  Orationes  (1568). 

2  Dareste,  Essai  sur  Fr.  Hoiman,  p.  9. 
1  Banosius,  op.  cit.,  p.  18. 


106  PETER   RAMUS 

have  been  a  piece  of  private  revenge  on  the  part  of 
Carpentarius  rather  than  a  result  of  the  general 
massacre.1  Hired  assassins,  led  by  a  tailor  and  a 
sergeant,  forced  their  way  into  the  College  of  Presles 
and  at  length  found  Ramus  in  his  little  study  on  the 
fifth  floor.  He  was  devoting  his  last  moments  to 
prayer,  and,  as  the  old  man  rose  from  his  knees,  his 
venerable  dignity  seemed  for  a  moment  to  have 
overawed  the  intruders.  Seeing,  however,  that  he 
could  hope  for  neither  pity  nor  mercy,  he  commended 
his  soul  to  God  and  sought  forgiveness  for  his  trans- 
gressions. If  we  may  believe  his  biographers,2  his 
last  utterance  was  strangely  like  that  of  his  Master 
on  Calvary.  "Pardon  these  wretched  men,  my  God, 

1  Waddington  devotes  a  chapter  (IX)  to  this  very  likely  supposi- 
tion.   Besides  the  testimony  of  Nancel  (p.  74),  who  declares  that 
the  murder  was  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  king  and  queen- 
mother,  he  bases  his  further  proof  upon   the  unanimity  of  all 
historians,  especially  those  who  were   contemporary,  and  upon 
the  character  of  Carpentarius  and  his  writings.     Carpentarius 
had  been  reared  by  Galland  in  hatred  of  all  innovations ;  he  was 
the  only  man  at  the  time  systematically  writing  against  Ramus ; 
his  ignorance  had  been  exposed  and  his  pride  injured  by  Ramus 
in  the  matter  of  his  assumption  of  the  chair  of  mathematics  in  the 
Royal  College;  and  his  constant  attempts  afterward  to  explain 
the  death  of  Ramus  as  due  to  public  feeling  and  as  a  just  punish- 
ment, look  suspicious. 

2  See  Banosius,  pp.  34  f. ;  Nancel,  pp.  74  ff . 


CONVERSION,    PERSECUTION,    AND   DEATH  107 

for  they  know  not  what  they  do  ! "  Shot  through  the 
head  and  pierced  with  a  sword,  he  was  flung  from  the 
window.  His  fall  was  somewhat  broken  by  a  pro- 
jecting roof,  and  the  body  fell  palpitating  into  the 
courtyard  of  the  college.  There  further  indignities 
were  heaped  upon  the  body,  and  it  was  dragged  with  a 
rope  through  the  streets  until  the  Seine  was  reached, 
where  a  surgeon  struck  off  the  head,  and  the  trunk  was 
cast  into  the  river.  Later  it  was  drawn  ashore  again 
and  hacked  to  pieces  on  the  banks  of  the  Seine. 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  AND  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF 
EDUCATION 

DURING  his  stormy  career  Ramus  had  demon- 
strated in  his  practice  at  the  two  colleges  he  served, 
and  formulated  in  the  textbooks  he  had  written  upon 
the  liberal  arts  and  theology,  the  way  to  an  education 
of  broader  scope  and  greater  efficiency.  His  chief 
aim  was  to  spare  the  student  the  barrenness  and  need- 
less difficulties  that  he  himself  had  been  obliged  to 
face.  As  we  have  seen,  his  denunciation  of  Aristotle 
grew  out  of  the  formal  dialectics  and  senseless  dis- 
putations that  passed  for  an  education  during  his 
studentship  at  the  College  of  Navarre.  Accordingly, 
he  turned  from  the  whole  system  in  disgust.  He  pro- 
ceeded to  divest  himself  of  scholastic  philosophy  and 
strove  to  rationalize  the  training  afforded  by  the 
schools.  He  declares :  — 

"It  was  my  constant  study  to  remove  from  the 
path  of  the  liberal  arts  the  briers  and  rocks,  and  all 

intellectual  obstacles  and  retardations,  and  to  make 

1 08 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  109 

even  and  straight  the  way,  in  order  to  arrive  more 
easily  not  only  at  intelligence,  but  the  practice  and 
use  of  the  liberal  arts."  1 

Without  explicitly  discussing  the  ultimate  meaning 
and  value  of  education,  then,  Ramus  wished  to  im- 
prove the  material  studied,  and  to  render  the  meth- 
ods of  acquisition  easier  and  more  interesting.  He 
struggled  to  free  all  the  arts  from  the  barbarism  into 
which  they  had  degenerated  by  selecting,  arranging, 
and  presenting  their  content  according  to  some  defi- 
nite plan.  The  principles  for  these  reforms  may  be 
summed  up  in  three  key- words,  —  nature,  system,  and 
practice.2 

While  he  nominally  sought  his  guidance  with 
complete  independence  of  thought  and  investiga- 
tion, he  seems  to  have  borrowed  this  trinity  of  ideals 
from  Quintilian,  whose  rhetorical  work  was  most 
influential  among  the  humanists.3  Of  the  three 
principles  mentioned,  the  first  applies  more  to  the 
determination  of  content  and  the  last  of  method, 
while  the  second  comes  somewhat  into  consideration 
in  both  connections.  His  standardization  for  the 

1  See  Remonstrance  au  conseil  prive,  pp.  27  f. 
9  Natura,  ratio,  exercitatio.    See  Instil,  dial.,  I,  2. 
J  See  Insttt.  Oral.,  Ill,   2.    These  principles  were,   however, 
probably  used  first  by  Aristotle. 


110  PETER   RAMUS 

subject  matter,  then,  he  finds  in  the  observation  of 
nature.  For  example,  the  material  for  grammar  or 
language  study  he  desires  to  have  derived  from 
actual  usage,  —  the  ancient  tongues  from  the  classi- 
cal writers,  and  the  modern  from  the  speech  of  the 
people.  Similarly,  he  holds  that  logic  should  be 
based  upon  observation  of  the  human  mind,  and 
natural  sciences  upon  the  investigation  of  nature. 
The  application  of  this  principle  will  be  shown  defi- 
nitely in  his  treatment  of  the  different  liberal  arts. 

When  the  subject  matter  has  been  obtained,  he 
holds  that  it  must  be  thoroughly  sifted  and  arranged. 
The  principles  for  system,  or  arrangement,  he  seems 
to  have  taken  from  Aristotle,  and  the  laws  for  defin- 
ing and  organizing  the  various  subjects  of  study 
may  be  termed  universality,  homogeneity,  and  prim- 
i  acy  of  the  general.1  His  dialectic  works  describe 
these  underlying  standards  in  full,  but  in  his  other 
important  treatises  he  also  states  them,  though  with- 
out much  discussion.2  This  shows  how  rigidly  he 

1  Kara  TTUVTOS,  naff  auro,  and  xad'  oXou;  see  Analytica  Hystera, 
4.  The  Latin  forms  are  de  omni,  per  se,  and  universaliter  primum. 
Ramus  may  have  been  more  influenced  in  this  by  Vives's  works 
and  Sturm's  lectures  on  logic,  both  of  which  were  in  agreement  with 
this  Aristotelian  scheme. 

*  See  preface  to  Scholce  in  liberales  artcs,  etc. 


GENERAL   PRINCIPLES  III 

applied  the  rules  of  real  logic  to  all  subjects,'  although 
he  strenuously  objected  to  the  stereotyped  scho- 
lastic dialectic,  which  had  so  restricted  the  content 
and  method  of  the  liberal  arts.  While  the  applica- 
tion and  elaboration  of  these  principles  of  'system' 
will  be  made  clearer  as  each  one  of  the  liberal  arts  is 
treated,  it  may  be  well  to  elucidate  them  in  general 

here.  *^tfS>Ti  £  "* 

In  the  first  place,  the  law  of  'universality'  is  that     /] 

every  precept  must  be  in  keeping  with  truth,  not 
only  in  some  instances,  but  always.  It  must  neces- 
sarily, and  not  accidentally,  be  true;  its  validity 
must  be  incontrovertible.  For  the  arts  must  have  a 
sure  basis ;  they  must,  in  accordance  with  Plato's  doc- 
trine,2 rest  upon  ideas,  since  they  are  not  created,  but 
have  always  existed.  Judged  by  this  principle,  much 
of  scholasticism,  especially  in  dialectics,  would  be 
found  invalid,  since  it  would  not  be  universally 
applicable.  For  instance,  the  geometrical  proposi- 
tion that '  the  sum  of  the  angles  of  a  triangle  is  equal 
to  two  right  angles'  is  valid,  but  the  statement  that 
'every  angle  of  a  triangle  is  equal  to  sixty  degrees' 

1  See  Remonstrance  au  conseil  prive,  p.  27. 

2  This  reference  to  Platonic  idealism   is  found  in  the  Schola 
rhetorica,  IX,  333.    See  Plato,  Republic,  Book  VI ;  Phadrus,  246 
ff. ;  M eno,  80  ft. ;  etc. 


112  PETER   RAMUS 

would  not  hold,  since  it  would  not  apply  to  isosceles 
or  scalene  triangles.1  Thus  this  standard  eliminates 
all  fallacies  and  inaccuracies,  and  is  called  by  Ramus 
'the  law  of  truth.'  His  second  law,  that  of  'homo- 
geneity,' is  that  all  precepts  must  be  germane  to  the 
subject  and  to  each  other.  For  example,  Aristotle 
states  that  it  would  be  '  unarithmetical '  to  speak  of 
size  in  arithmetic,  and  'ungeometrical'  to  deal  with 
number  in  geometry.  Similarly,  it  is  invalid  to  treat  of 
rhetorical  figures  in  grammar,  or  of  the  parts  of  speech 
in  rhetoric.  The  boundaries  between  the  arts  should 
be  carefully  marked  so  that  clarity  may  be  maintained, 
and,  since  this  principle  defines  the  province  of  each 
subject,  Ramus  names  it  'the  law  of  justice.'  The 
'  third  rule  is  deductive  and  maintains  that  the  general 
should  precede  and  the  particular  should  follow.2 
In  other  words,  whatever  applies  universally  through- 
out a  subject  should  be  stated  at  the  outset  of  the 
exposition,  and  only  then.  For  if  the  particular  is 
stated  first,  it  will  not  be  characteristic  of  the  entire 
class ;  and  if  the  universal  is  postponed,  it  will  have 
to  be  repeated  in  each  particular  case.  To  use  the 

1  Cf.  S choice  grammaticce,  I,  7. 

2  Ramus  expresses  it  tersely  as  generalia  non  speciatim  specialia 
non  generatim. 


GENERAL    PRINCIPLES  113 

former  illustration,  'the  sum  of  the  angles  of  a  tri- 
angle is  equal  to  two  right  angles '  is  a  general  charac- 
teristic of  the  figure ;  it  should  be  stated  once  at 
the  beginning,  and  not  repeated  each  time  in  deal- 
ing with  equilateral,  isosceles,  and  scalene  triangles. 
This  principle  helps  to  produce  a  clearer  arrangement 
of  the  material,  and,  through  a  natural  and  appro- 
priate development  of  each  subject,  greatly  facilitates 
the  memory  of  the  pupil.  Consequently  it  is  denomi- 
nated by  Ramus  'the  law  of  wisdom.' 

Thus  by  means  of  these  three  laws  our  reformer 
undertook  to  criticize  the  mass  of  subject  matter  em- 
ployed in  the  education  of  the  times.  He  added  lit- 
tle to  the  curriculum,  but,  as  Vives,  Sturm,  Melanch- 
thon,  and  other  humanists  had  done  in  a  less  degree, 
he  separated  the  wheat  from  the  chaff.  The  useless 
and  false  material  that  had  crept  in  through  medieval 
commentaries,  sophistry,  and  faith  hi  authority,  he 
was  able,  by  means  of  the  law  of  'truth,'  to  detect 
and  eliminate,  and,  by  means  of  the  laws  of  '  justice ' 
and  'wisdom,'  he  found  a  more  logical  and  more 
easily  remembered  arrangement,  and  rid  the  various 
subjects  of  confusion  and  tautology.  In  this  respect 
his  educational  ideal  of  'nature'  and  'observation' 
may  be  said  to  have  led  to  the  further  aim  of  dear- 


114  PETER    RAMUS 

ing  the  liberal  arts  of  falsehood,  surreptitious  matter, 
and  repetitions.  Or  to  state  the  matter  positively, 
his  ideal  of  'system'  implied  that  the  subjects 
should  be  given  a  true,  homogeneous,  and  simple 
exposition. 

In  the  matter  of  method,  by  means  of  his  third 
principle,  practice,  Ramus  also  endeavored  to  make 
considerable  improvement  upon  the  current  proced- 
ure. The  scholastic  instruction  at  the  University 
of  Paris  consisted  in  lectures,  repetitions,  and  dispu- 
tations. These  methods  were  not  bad  in  themselves, 
but  serious  abuses  had  grown  up  in  them.  Owing 
to  the  scarcity  and  great  cost  of  textbooks,  the  lec- 
tures had  come  to  consist  mostly  in  lengthy  dicta- 
tions from  the  authors  under  consideration.  Such 
time  as  was  given  to  exposition  was  largely  wasted  in 
literal  explanations  of  the  passages  read,  and  there 
was  a  plethora  of  quibbles  and  hair-splitting  distinc- 
tions in  the  discussion  of  all  the  liberal  arts.  The 
repetitions  consisted  in  the  mere  mechanical  recita- 
tion of  rhymed  rules  and  difficult  definitions.  But 
the  most  fixed  and  formal  feature  of  the  uni- 
versity method  was,  as  Ramus  declared,1  the  dispu- 
tation. Thanks  to  the  prominence  of  the  scholastic 

1  See  pp.  21  ff. 


GENERAL   PRINCIPLES  115 


dialectic  and  philosophy,  these  fruitless  affairs  seem 
to  have  been  the  chief  goal  of  instruction  from 
very  beginning  of  the  course. 

As  Erasmus  and  other  humanists  had  foreseen, 
such  methods  spelled  death  for  the  liberal  arts,  and 
it  was  the  increasing  aim  of  Ramus  to  reform  them. 
Like  the  humanists  generally,  he  constantly  attempted 
to  simplify  and  render  the  subjects  intelligible.  In- 
stead of  dallying  over  abstract  rules,  he  advised  that 
the  principles  be  made  clear  by  illustrations  taken 
from  the  works  of  the  classical  authors  and  by  imi- 
tation of  them  in  written  and  oral  exercises.  But  he 
went  much  further  in  rationalizing  his  pedagogy 
than  Vives,  Sturm,  and  any  of  the  other  humanists, 
although  their  works  doubtless  proved  suggestive 
to  him.  He  strove  to  render  the  general  approach  of 
humanism  more  specific,  and  laid  out  a  definite  pro- 
cedure for  each  portion  of  the  school  day.1  During  th 
first  hour  the  teacher  is  to  lecture  on  the  topic  of 
day,  give  the  underlying  principles,  develop,  and  ex- 
plain, but  make  very  little  of  the  exercise  a  dictation. 
The  next  two  hours  are  devoted  by  the  pupils  to 
working  up,  each  by  himself,  what  has  been  learned 

1  Pro  phihsophica  Parisiensis  academia  disciplina  in    Collect, 
Praf.,  pp.  325  ff. 


em 

the 


Il6  PETER  RAMUS 

during  the  lecture.  The  fourth  hour  is  given  to  recit- 
ing to  the  teacher  and  making  sure  that  the  meaning 
and  rules  are  understood  and  memorized.  During 
the  last  two  hours  come  a  discussion  and  disputation, 
to  discover  whether  the  pupil  can  develop  for  himself 
what  has  been  learned  and  can  explain  and  apply 
it  independently.  This  completes  the  work  of  the 
morning,  and  the  afternoon  is  given  to  a  similar 
combination  of  methods. 

Thus,  according  to  the  general  plan  of  Ramus,  five 
hours  are  required  in  every  instance  to  impress  and 
make  of  value  what  is  learned  in  one  hour.  He  defi- 
nitely held  that  the  activities  of  the  teacher  should 
not  close  with  his  lecture  and  dictation,  but  that  he 
should  continue  working  with  his  pupils,  hearing 
them  recite  and  correcting  false  impressions,  and 
especially  stamping  home  the  right  principles  by 
1  practice'  or  application.  Ramus  here,  as  everywhere, 
seems  to  stress  application  and  utility.  'Practice' 
plays  the  most  important  part  in  his  method,  since 
out  of  it  grow  the  use  of  rules  and  the  real  value  of  the 
subject.  He  frequently  makes  a  division  of  the  daily 
routine  into  two  chief  phases, ( explanation '  and  'prac- 
tice.' The  former  term  appears  prominently  in 
exposition,  repetition,  and  even  discussion,  but  he 


' 

GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  1 17 

held  that  it  is  in  itself  senseless  and  useless.  "If 
we  stop  with  the  explanation,"  says  he,  "we  are  like 
the  guests  of  Heliogabalus."  1  The  real  end  and  aim 

C2*^ m  "^ ^""^^*^» 

of  all  method  is,  in  his  mind,  *  pi-art-ir^*  2  sinrp  only 
in  this  way  does  the  student  learn  to  use  his  knowl- 
edge. There  are  two  aspects  to  this  process,  — 
'analysis'  and  'genesis.' 3  The  one  consists  in  a 
critical  dissection  arid  testing  to  see  how  the  author 
of  the  example  conforms  to  the  rules;  the  other  in 
first  copying  the  style  and  thought  and  producing 
something  akin  to  the  model,  and  in  later  creat 
independently  and  forming  without  outside  help  a 
work  of  one's  own,  which  shall  not  only  equal  the 
model,  but  possibly  surpass  it.  By  means  of  this 
combination  of  analysis  and  synthesis  there  can  be 
generated  a  genuine  self -activity,  and  the  pupils  can 
be  enabled  to  secure  an  excellent  mastery  of  the  sub- 
ject matter. 

In  this  way  Ramus  strove  to  make  the  instruction 
at  the  College  of  Presles  more  interesting,  critical, 
and  effective.  Thanks  to  the  'explanation,'  the  stu- 

1  Schol.  dial.,  IV,  189.  An  allusion  to  the  banquet  at  which  this 
emperor  smothered  the  chief  men  of  Rome  in  a  shower  of  roses. 

*  Schol.  dial.,  XX,  604. 

s  See  ibid.,  VII,  262  ff.  and  299  ff. ;  Instil.  dial.$ttl,  360  ff. ; 
and  Schol.  rhet.,  XVIII,  381,  etc. 


Il8  ;  PETER   RAMUS 

dents  were  never  forced  to  commit  what  they  did  not 
understand,  and  only  so  far  as  it  was  absolutely  neces- 
sary did  they  merely  learn  and  recite,  but,  by  means 
of  the  twofold  process  of  'practice,'  they  became  in- 
dependent and  original.  The  procedure  at  which  our 
French  reformer  aimed  was  in  line  with  that  of  Vives, 
Sturm,  and  other  humanists.  These  reformers  gen- 
erally tended  to  abbreviate  the  theoretical  'explana- 
tion' and  stress  the  real  'practice/  and  to  use  for  this 
purpose  examples  from  the  classical  authors.  But 
no  one  of  them  developed  his  position  so  clearly  and 
systematically  as  Ramus,  although  he  did  not  crys- 
tallize his  curriculum  and  method  into  any  such  sharp 
division  by  years  as  did  Sturm.  In  the  next  three 
chapters  we  shall  see  how  these  principles  of  con- 
tent and  method  worked  out  in  the  specific  subjects 
of  the  liberal  arts. 

Numerous  pedagogical  advantages  could  easily  be 
prophesied  for  these  principles  of  Ramus  in  content 
and  method.  They  naturally  augured  clearness  and 
brevity  in  the  curriculum,  and  facility,  interest,  and 
economy  to  the  student.  We  can,  therefore,  scarcely 
surprised  to  learn  that  Ramus  reduced  the  length 

'the  course  in  the  liberal  arts  to  seven  years.  Three 
years,  instead  of  five,  or  even  seven  (with  Vives  and 


GENERAL   PRINCIPLES  IIQ 

Sturm),  were  given  to  the  languages  or  'grammar,' 
and  one  year  each  to  rhetoric,  dialectic,  mathematics, 
and  physics.  This  curtailment  of  the  years  of  study 
was,  however,  undoubtedly  effected  by  Ramus  not  / 
only  through  a  better  arrangement  of  the  content, 
but  by  the  fact  that  he  would  grant  a  much  smaller  , 
number  of  holidays.  With  the  exception  of  about 
thirty  days,  he  believed  in  holding  school  the  entire 
year.1  Under  this  system,  therefore,  the  pupils,  who 
were  supposed  to  enter  at  eight,  would  have  com- 
pleted their  work  in  the  liberal  arts  by  the  time  they 
were  fifteen,  and,  since  Ramus  holds  elsewhere  that 
the  transition  to  the  university  should  begin  at  this 
stage  of  their  work,2  they  would  be  able  to  complete 
their  professional  course  in  the  latter  institution  at 
a  comparatively  early  age. 

1  See  pp.  46  and  64.  *  Sec  p.  84. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  CONTENT  AND  METHOD  OF  THE  TRIVIUM 

SUCH  were  the  general  principles  and  laws  that 
Ramus  wished  to  follow  in  determining  the  content 
and  method  of  the  liberal  arts  and  other  subjects. 
He  was  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  validity  and 
efficiency  of  these  logical  ideals,  and  felt  that  by 
applying  them  rigidly  to  each  of  the  disciplines  he 
could  greatly  clarify  and  simplify  their  study.  The 
liberal  arts  of  the  times  he  divided  into  the  'exoteric,' 
which  were  the  grammar,  rhetoric,  and  dialectic  of 
the  old  trivium,  and  the  'esoteric,'  which  corresponded 
roughly  to  the  former  quadrivium,  and  with  him  in- 
cluded mathematics  (i.e.  arithmetic  and  geometry), 
physics,  metaphysics,  and  ethics.  The  'exoteric' 
arts  were,  of  course,  easier  of  approach  and  of  more 
general  utility,  and  with  them  he  began  his  reform. 
While  'dialectic,'  or  logic,  has  been  shown  to  underlie 
the  arrangement  and  presentation  of  them  all,  we  will 
here  take  them  up  in  order  and  turn  first  to  grammar. 

120 


THE   CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF  THE  TRTVIUM      121 

As  far  as  grammar  was  concerned,  at  Paris  in  the 
time  of  Ramus  the  medieval  textbooks  and  methods 
held  complete  sway.  The  Elegancies  of  Latin1  by 
Valla  had  for  almost  a  century  been  paving  the  way 
for  an  improvement  of  Latin  writing,  but  the  work 
was  scarcely  known  in  Paris.  There  Donatus  and 
Priscian  had  been  replaced  by  such  works  as  the 
Doctrinale  of  Alexander  of  Villedieu,  which,  for  the 
sake  of  easy  memorizing,  were  often  written  in  bad 
verse.  One  of  the  most  popular  of  these  was  the  Rudi- 
ments of  Despantere,  which  began  its  vogue  about  the 
time  that  Ramus  was  born.  The  most  difficult  and 
unintelligible  presentation  of  grammar  blocked  the 
way  to  any  real  knowledge  of  the  subject,  and  while 
the  poets,  like  Vergil  and  Ovid,  were  able  to  persist 
and  furnish  some  notion  of  style,  the  Latin  prose 
writers  were  still  generally  forbidden  as  heathen.2 
In  consequence,  the  most  atrocious  Latin  was  com- 
mon. The  colloquial  abominations  of  the  schoolmen 
and  the  theologians,  mixed  with  an  extensive  collec- 
tion of  barbarisms  and  Gallicisms,  were  in  general 
use  in  the  higher  schools.  At  times  even  the  pro- 

1  Elegantia  Latina.      See  Voigt,  Die  Wiederlebung  des  clas~ 
sischen  Alterthums,  n,  378. 

2  See  Paulsen,  Geschichte  des  gekhrten  Unterrichts,  pp.  24  f. 


122  PETER  RAMUS 

fessors  of  the  university  were  positively  ungram- 
matical.1  Moreover,  the  grammatical  treatises  of 
the  day  were  inaccurate,  repetitious,  and  filled  with 
dialectic  and  metaphysical  discussions  quite  foreign 
to  the  subject. 

We  have  already  narrated 2  how,  between  the  years 
1559  and  1562,  in  order  to  effect  some  reform  in  this 
subject,  Ramus  produced  at  least  half  a  dozen  works 
grammar.  Three  of  these  were  devoted  to 
and  two  to  Greek,  while  the  sixth  treatise 
dealt  with  the  vernacular.3  In  each  of  these,  accord- 
ing to  his  principle  of  '  nature/  he  was  guided  by 
actual  use.  He  did  not  set  himself  up  as  an  arbiter 

1  Ramus  even  affirms  (Schol.  gram.,  II,  15)  that  egoamat  seemed 
as  correct  to  certain  Sorbonists  as  ego  amo.     Probably  the  racy 
satire  in  the  Epistolce  obscurorum  virorum,  while  an  exaggeration, 
had  a  real  basis  of  fact.    At  any  rate,  a  work  in  four  volumes 
known  as  Grcecarum  institutionum  ritdimenla,  which  was  published 
in  Paris  by  George  Mauropaedius  only  five  years  before  the  gram- 
matical works  of  Ramus  began  to  appear,  and  is  still  in  existence, 
exhibits  the  most  barbarous  blunders  in  its  Latinity. 

2  See  pp.  57  f . 

3  His  interest  in  his  native  language  to  the  extent  of  producing 
vernacular  treatises  on  both  grammar  and  dialectic,  at  a  time  when, 
according  to  Pasquier,  it  was  doubted  whether  it  was  "worth  while 
to  couch  the  arts  in  French,"  shows  his  progressive  patriotism  and 
modern  spirit.     He  also  demanded  unceasingly  a  vernacular  trans- 
lation of  the  Scriptures,  and  it  is  well  known  that  he  was  ambitious 
to  see  his  native  land  build  up  a  genuine  national  literature. 


THE   CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF   THE   TRIVIUM      123 

of  speech,  like  Donatus  and   Priscian,  but  judged 
of  the  Latin  and  Greek  by  means  of  the  classical 
I   authors,  and  of  the  French  by  the  speech  of   the 
v'people.1     In    the    grammar   of    each  language,   he 
adopted  a  short  and  easy  method  according  to  the 
definite  rules  which  obtain  throughout  his  texts  on 
the  liberal  arts,2  and  thus  eliminated  most  of  the 
« ^.Jallacies,  impertinences,  and  repetitions  of  the  exist- 
ing grammars.    Also,  in  keeping  with  his  plan,  he    I  / 
endeavored  to  turn  his  'explanation'  into  'practice' 

as  soon  as  possible.3    The  form  in  which  the  works 
*  •••••—• 

themselves  were  written  furnished  a  model  of  correct- 
ness and  elegance  that  had  been  little  known  for 
centuries. 

The  limitations  of  space  forbid  our  even  outlining 
the  plan  employed  by  Ramus  in  each  of  his  grammati- 
cal treatises,  but  that  used  in  his  works  on  Latin,4  the 
most  important  language  of  the  times,5  may  be  given 
here  as  an  example  of  them  all.  In  order  to  avoid 
repetition,  in  keeping  with  his  principle  of  the  'pri- 

1  Schol.  gram.,  II,  n  ff.    See  also  p.  no. 

2  See  pp.  109  ff. 

3  See  pp.  1145. 

4  I.e.  the  Grammatics  Latina  libri  quattuor,  Rudimenta  gram- 
matica,  and  his  extensive  Schola  grammatica.     See  p.  57. 

3  See  footnote  3  on  p.  122. 


124  PETER  RAMTIS 

macy  of  the  general/1  he  treats  the  subject  deduc- 
tively. He  begins  with  the  most  general  statement 
possible,  and  defines  grammar  as  'the  art  of  talking 
correctly.' 2  He  thus  establishes  a  definite  and 
practical  goal.  Throughout  he  avoids  all  extraneous 
topics,  and  outlines  the  subject  as  clearly  as  possible. 
His  first  large  division  of  grammar  is  into  '  etymology ' 
and  'syntax,'3  for  he  scorns  any  such  tautological 
heads  as  the  'orthography'  of  Quintilian,  the  'anal- 
ogy' of  Varro,  or  'prosody,'  which  he  deals  with  in 
rhetoric.4 

In  etymology  he  begins  with  a  discussion  of  the 
letters  and  pronunciation.  In  the  case  of  both 
these  subjects  Ramus  attempted  to  institute  reforms. 
He  recommended  the  use  of  the  characters  j  and  v  to 
represent  the  consonant  sounds,  that  had  up  to  that 
time  been  included  in  i  and  u  and  were  subject  to 
confusion  with  the  vowels.5  They  were,  in  conse- 

*See  p.  112. 

2  Grammatica  est  ars  bene  loquenai.    See  Gram.  Lat.,  IV,  Preface. 

*  Books  I  and  II  of  Grammatica  Latina  are  devoted  to  'etymol- 
ogy';  Books  III  and  IV  to  'syntax.'  4  See  Schol.  gram.,  II,  10  ff. 

5  His  priority  in  this  distinction  is  conceded  by  all  his  contempo- 
raries from  Freigius  (pp.  23  f.)  and  Nancel  (pp.  39  f.),  who  enthu- 
siastically praise  the  step,  to  Scaliger  (Scaligerana,  p.  288),  who 
considers  it  foolish  and  vexatious.  See  also  Ramus  himself  (Schol. 
Gram.,  1.  II). 


THE   CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF  THE   TRIVIUM      12$ 

quence,  for  a  long  time  known  as '  the  Ramist  conso- 
nants.' He  also  made  prevalent  in  the  schools  an 
exact  and  elegant  pronunciation,  although,  as  has 
been  pointed  out,  this  cost  him  a  serious  struggle 
with  the  Sorbonists.1  Next,  he  discusses  syllables, 
and  their  formation  and  quantity,  as  well  as  accent 
and  expression,  and  the  origin  and  formation  of 
words. 

Then  he  considers  the  parts  of  speech,  which  he 
again  divides  into  two  classes,  —  words  with  '  num- 
ber' and  words  without  'number.'  Under  the  first 
head  he  groups  substantives  and  verbs.2  Substan- 
tives include  pronouns  and  adjectives,  as  well  as 
nouns,  and  have,  as  their  distinguishing  modifica- 
tions, gender  and  case.  Instead  of  the  five  declen- 
sions, employed  by  Varro  and  grammars  of  the  pres- 
ent day,  Ramus  groups  his  substantives  under  two 

1  See  pp.  62  f .    In  French  he  also  wished,  like  Etienne  Dolet 
and  other  humanistic  theorists,  to  introduce  reformed  spelling,  but 
this  step  proved  too  radical,  when  the  pronunciation  of  that  lan- 
guage has  differed  so  greatly  in  different  sections  of  the  country 
and  from  century  to  century.  Even  Pasquier  (Lettres,  1.  Ill,  4)  dis- 
approves of  this  reform  on  the  grounds  stated  above,  and  Ramus 
anticipated   (Gram.  Lot.,   VII,  56)  that  these  objections  would 
be  made. 

2  The  first  part  of  Book  I  is  devoted  to  'substantives'  and  the 
second  to  'verbs.' 


126  PETER  RAMUS 

declensions,  (i)  that  where  the  substantive  has  the 
same  number  of  syllables  in  all  cases,  and  (2)  that 
where  it  has  a  different  number.  He  further  divides 
the  '  equal-syllabled '  declension,  according  as  -is  ap- 
pears in  the  dative  plural  (as  in  the  first  and  second 
declensions  of  our  present-day  Latin  grammar),  or 
does  not;  and  the  '  unequal-syllabled '  declension  he 
groups  under  two  heads,  which  correspond  respec- 
tively to  our  third  declension  and  to  our  fourth  and 
fifth.  While,  therefore,  he  really  discriminates  four 
declensions,  it  seems  like  a  much  simpler,  easier,  and 
more  logical  arrangement,  and  it  enables  him  to  treat 
the  irregular  nouns  with  the  others.1  Last  of  all  he 
deals  with  the  indeclinables,  among  which  he  men- 
tions the  cardinal  numerals. 

The  modifications  of  verbs  he  gives  as  tense  and 
person.  He  makes  the  important  modification  of 
moods  of  little  account,  showing  by  a  number  of 
examples  that  there  is  no  clear  distinction  in  their 
meaning.2  The  three  chief  tenses  —  present,  past, 
and  future — are  explained,  first  for  the  finite  moods 
and  then  for  the  infinitive.  Here  also  he  is  able  to 

1  In  his  larger  work,  Schola  grammatics,  XIII,  he  also  discusses 
the  irregular  adjectives. 

2  See  Schol.  gram.,  XIV. 


THE    CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF   THE   TRIVIUM      127 

treat  irregularities  and  variations  without  a  separate 
discussion.  He  also  gives  due  attention  to  the  gerund 
and  the  supine  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  participles 
on  the  other,  treating  the  former  as  substantives,  and 
the  latter  as  verbs,  instead  of  as  separate  parts  of 
speech.  Under  their  second  modification,  Ramus 
divides  verbs  "Into  personal  .and .  _  impersonal.  He 
does  not  distinguish  the  personal  verbs,  according 
to  their  variations,  as  inchoative,  frequentative,  and 
desiderative,  since  this  seems  to  him  to  be  valueless 
to  the  student,  but  he  does  divide  them  into  active, 
passive,  and  deponent.1  In  the  matter  of  conjuga- 
tion he  makes  two  classes,  according  as  the  future 
ends  in  -bo  or  -am.  As,  however,  he  subdivides  both 
these  classes,  he  practically  distinguishes  the  four 
conjugations  that  are  usually  given  now,  although 
here  again  he  does  not  treat  the  irregulars  by  them- 
selves. 

The  second  part  of  etymology,  which  deals  with 
words  that  do  not  have  number,  is  exceedingly  brief. 
It  bears  upon  the  four  indeclinable  parts  of  speech,  - 
adverbs,  conjunctions,  prepositions,  and  interjec- 
tions, —  but  the  use  of  the  last  two  is  deferred  until 
syntax  is  reached. 

*  Ibid.,  XVI. 


128  PETER  RAMUS 

Ramus  then  takes  up  syntax,  which  he  defines  as 
'the  construction  of  words,'  and  deals  with  it  under 
the  main  heads  of  '  agreement '  and  '  government;.' 1 
Under  both  these  divisions  he  again  considers  words 
with  'number'  and  words  without  'number.'  He 
groups  under  words  with  number  the  agreement  of 
substantive  with  substantive,  in  which  adjectives 
are  included,  and  of  verb  with  substantive.  Under 
the  former  are  given  the  rules  for  apposition  and 
attributive,  including  all  irregular  cases  where  the 
word  in  apposition  or  the  attribute  refers  to  several 
substantives.  Under  the  latter  come  the  rules  for 
subject  and  predicate.  In  the  agreement  of  words 
without  number,  he  deals  first  with  adverbs  that 
form  the  comparative  and  superlative  degrees,  and 
then  with  conjunctions,  according  to  their  place  in 
the  sentence.  He  also  mentions  'asyndeton,'  or 
omission  of  the  conjunction,  and  'polysyndeton/  or 
figurative  repetition  of  the  conjunction. 

The  government  of  words  with  number  considers 
nouns  and  verbs.  Under  the  former  come  (i)  the 
subjective,  objective,  and  characteristic  genitive,  and 

1  Book  III  of  the  Grammatica  Latina  is  mostly  taken  up  with  a 
consideration  of  Syntaxis  convenient!®  and  Book  IV  with  syntaxis 
rectionis. 


THE   CONTENT  AND  METHOD  OF  THE  TRTVTUM      129 

the  ablative  of  characteristic,  including  adjectives 
in  these  constructions,  and  (2)  the  partitive  genitive 
with  comparatives,  superlatives,  and  numerals,  the 
genitive  with  adjectives  of  'plenty  and  want,'  and 
the  dative  of  'benefit  or  injure.'  Under  verbs  are 
first  treated  transitive  verbs,  active  and  passive, 
intransitive  verbs  of  'acquisition'  taking  the  dative, 
transitive  verbs  with  the  double  accusative,  and 
verbs  of  'plenty  and  want'  with  the  ablative  or 
genitive.  He  then  discusses  the  verb  governing 
another  verb,  including  an  infinitive  as  the  object 
of  a  verb  of  'wish'  or  'desire,'  and  a  supine  in  -um 
after  verbs  of  motion.  He  finally  mentions  the 
infinitival  construction  and  the  ten  impersonal  verbs 
that  take  the  genitive.  The  government  of  words 
without  number  is  very  briefly  considered.  It  deals 
with  adverbs  of  'place,'  which  take  the  genitive,  and 
constructions  with  interjections  and  prepositions. 

The  diagram  on  the  next  page  may  perhaps  serve 
to  make  clearer  the  organization  of  grammar  accord- 
ing to  Ramus.  An  examination  of  the  scheme  reveals 
how  completely  Ramus,  in  determining  the  content 
and  arrangement  of  his  Grammar,  has  fulfilled  his 
three  principles  of  'truth,'  'justice,'  and  'wisdom.' 
He  seems  to  have  skillfully  avoided  all  fallacious, 


PETER  RAMUS 

extraneous,  and  repetitious  material.  There  like- 
wise appears  here  a  new  principle  of  organiza- 
tion, which  savors  more  of  a  scholastic  origin,  and 
of  which  we  shall  hear  again  later.  This  is  his 
'dichotomy,'  or  consistent  division  of  each  class  into 
two  species. 


• 

words       (  tetters 

I  syllables 

1  modifies-        f  gender 

tions               I  case 

substan- 

equal- 

tives 
declensions 

syllabled 

with 

unequal- 

Ety- 

number 

syllabled 

mology 

parts  of 

fmodifica- 

tense 

speech 

tions 

person 

vcruo         < 

[future  in  -bo 

1  conjugations 

future  in  -am 

Grammar, 

f  adverbs 

'th«art  of 

without 

I  conjunctions 

talking  cor- 

number 

2  f  prepositions 

rectly,'  is 

I  interjections 

di  rided 

substantive  with       ( 

apposition 

into: 

with 

substantive 

attributive 

number 

verb  with  substan-   f  subject 

agreement 

tive                            I  predicate 

adverbs  of  degree 

without 

i  asyndeton 

Syntax 

number 

conjunctions              j  polysynde- 
l  ton 

nouns      (  genitive  and  ablative 

with 

I  genitive  and  dative 

government 

number 

j  transitive 
verbs       \  . 
I  intransitive 

without    <  adverbs  of  place 

number    \  interjections  and  prepositions 

Like  all  schemata,  this  principle  of  division  at  times 
plays  havoc  with  the  natural  order  of  things,  and 
inevitably  brings  it  about  that  matters  closely 


THE   CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF  THE  TRIVIUM      13! 

related  are  sundered  in  presentation.  Moreover, 
while  in  etymology  this  clever  scheme  covers  every- 
thing of  importance  about  the  parts  of  speech,  in 
syntax  it  omits  much  from  their  possible  constructions. 
Yet  it  can  easily  be  seen  how  much  more  convenient 
must  have  been  such  a  brief  and  logical  classification, 
and  what  an  advance  it  marks  over  the  grammars 
that  were  in  use.  It  has  eliminated  most  of  the 
philosophical  and  dialectic  ballast  that  had  been 
slipped  into  syntactical  instruction,  and  it  has 
struggled  more  energetically  even  than  the  attempts 
of  other  humanists  to  free  itself  of  scholastic  influ- 
ence. It  limits  itself  to  grammar,  pure  and  simple, 
and  secures  its  illustrations  from  the  usage  of  the 
best  Latin  writers.  To  clarity  and  definiteness  of 
organization  it  added  brevity  and  intelligibility  of 
language.  While  but  few  directions  are  given,  they 
are  all  of  immediate  use,  and  the  learner  is  soon  led 
from  dry  and  difficult  rules  to  a  vital  study  of  the 
authors  themselves.  It  must  have  called  forth  a  new 
interest  in  the  pupil,  and  made  the  work  lighter  and 
more  rapid.  The  close  connection  of  this  grammar 
with  the  humanistic  movement,  as  well  as  its  remark- 
able success  in  the  schools,  is  shown  by  the  attempted 
union  of  it  with  the  work  of  Melanchthon  that  ap- 


132  PETER  RAMUS 

peared  in  a  Philippo-Ramian  Grammar,1  published 
twenty  years  after  the  death  of  our  reformer. 

Ramus  has  also  furnished  us  with  some  account  of 
the  way  this  subject  of  grammar  should  be  taught. 
During  the  three  years  to  be  given  to  grammar,2  he 
seems  to  have  intended  that  both  Latin  and  Greek 

•MMM*^WM^M^VB*M«Mi^WMM«i« 

should  be  pursued,  but  that  most  emphasis  should 
be  given  the  former  subject,  and  the  arrangement 
in  the  four  books  of  his  Latin  Grammar  should  be 
followed.  After  acquiring  the  letters  and  syllables 
and  securing  a  little  facility  in  reading  and  writ- 
ing Latin,  the  student  was  to  take  up  the  declen- 
sions and  conjugations.  But  he  was  to  be  given 
few  rules  of  syntax,  and  to  learn  more  through  ex- 
amples than  formal  grammar.  Easy  illustrations 
and  selections  were  to  be  taken  from  the  Bucolics 
of  Vergil  and  the  Comedies  of  Terence,  and  from 
the  simpler  works  of  Cicero  and  Homer.  The  first 
year  was  to  be  given  mainly  to  etymology  and  to 
teaching  the  pupils  to  express  themselves  and  ac- 
quire a  vocabulary.  The  second  year  these  acquisi- 
tions were  to  be  strengthened,  deepened,  and  wid- 

1  See  Schmid,  Encydopadie,   IV,  p.   931.    Cf.   the  Philippo- 
Ramists  in  dialectic,  p.  217. 

2  See  pp.  1 18  £. 


THE    CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF  THE   TRIVIUM      IJJ 

ened.  Considerable  practice  and  more  complete 
mastery  of  the  classical  writers  were  to  be  afforded. 
In  the  third  year  etymology  was  to  be  reviewed,  with 
illustrations  furnished  by  the  student  himself,  and 
syntax  was  to  be  completed.  But  in  this '  explanation ' 
and  in  '  practice ' l  the  knowledge  and  power  of  the 
youth  were  gradually  to  be  increased.  The  models 
analyzed  2  were  to  be  more  and  more  extended,  and, 
while  dealing  with  them,  the  student  was  to  learn 
from  this  usage  of  the  best  authors  his  etymology 
and  syntax,  orthography  and  prosody.  Then,  after 
the  ' practice'  in  'analysis,'  the  pupil  was  to  take  up 
'genesis,'  or  production  on  his  own  account.3  Here, 
too,  there  is  a  gradual  increase  in  difficulty,  beginning 
with  mere  imitation  and  later  coming  to  more  inde- 
pendent composition. 

Ramus  seems  to  have  spent  much  time  and  effort 
in  elaborating  the  best  methods  of  acquiring  Latin 
and  Greek.  He  felt  that,  whereas  rhetoric  and  dia- 
lectic were  to  some  extent  natural  gifts,  a  knowledge 
of  these  dead  languages,  both  because  of  their  intrin- 

1  See  pp.  n6f. 

2  An  excellent  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  this  '  analysis ' 
may  be  carried  on  is  given  with  the  hexameter,  O  Melibcec,  deus 
nobis  IKK  otia  fecit,  in  the  Scholce  dialectics,  VII,  191. 

sSeep.  117. 


134  PETER  RAMUS 

sic  difficulty  and  their  being  the  key  to  the  other 
arts,  required  the  greatest  industry  and  the  most 
skilled  instruction.  Instead  of  basing  his  methods 
upon  logic  and  formal  grammar,  Ramus  hoped  to 
j  lure  the  youths  into  a  study  of  Latin  and  Greek 
by  having  them  read  the  classical  authors  them- 
selves as  soon  as  possible.  In  this  respect  he  was 
not  unlike  the  rest  of  the  humanists,  but  he  seems 
to  have  excelled  them  all  in  reducing  to  a  minimum 
the  number  of  years  that  must  be  spent  in  acquiring 
grammar. 

In  the  reforms  he  proposed  for  rhetoric,  however, 
it  is  obvious  that  Ramus  received  more  opposition 
than  he  did  in  the  matter  of  grammar.1  The  reason 
lying  back  of  the  storm  that  arose  over  his  efforts  to 
improve  the  teaching  of  rhetoric  was  that  the  author- 
ity upon  which  rhetoric  was  based  was  not  merely 
that  of  some  medieval  writer,  like  Martianus  Capella 
or  Cassiodorus,  but  of  Cicero  and  Quintilian  them- 
selves. Even  the  humanists,  although  they  were 
free  from  the  scholastic  verbosity  and  the  digressions 
that  appear  in  most  of  the  textbooks  of  the  times, 
taught  rhetoric  according  to  Cicero  and  Quintilian, 
and  Melanchthon  even  intended  his  Institutions  of 

1  See  pp.  42  ff.    Cf.  also  preface  to  the  Schola  rhetorics. 


THE   CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF   THE   TRTVIUM      135 

Rhetoric  as  an  introductory  book  to  these  authors.1 
But  Ramus  did  not  bow  down  before  even  such 
great  authorities.  While  he  fully  appreciated  Cicero 
and  Quintilian,  he  held  that  they  were  not  infallible 
and  that  their  antiquity  was  not  sufficient  warrant 
for  the  abuses  which  the  current  textbooks  had 
wrought  in  their  name.  He,  accordingly,  applied 
his  laws  of  ' truth,'  'justice,'  and  'wisdom'  to  th 
content  of  rhetoric,  and  rigidly  rejected  all  that 
had  been  smuggled  into  the  subject.  Rhetoric,  he 
declared,  should  be  an  art  in  itself,  and  not  the 
exercising  ground  of  another  art.2 

It  seemed  fallacious  to  him  to  combine  rhetoric 
with  grammar,  as  suggested  by  Quintilian,  and  he 
held  it  confusing  to  insist,  with  Cicero,  that  dialectic, 
philosophy,  ethics,  and  various  other  subjects  are 
essential  to  the  orator  as  such.  These  matters, 
while  improving  to  him  as  a  man,  have  nothing  to 
do  with  his  rhetorical  training.  For  rhetoric  it  is 
necessary  only  to  know  the  rules  of  the  art  of  speech, 
so  as  to  use  them  effectively,  in  the  same  way  that 
grammar  consists  in  the  use  of  correct  language. 

1  See  Messer,   Quintilian  als  didaktiker  (Neue   JahrbUcher  ftir 
PhUologie  und  Ptidagogik,  1897,  pp.  415  f.). 

2  Schol.  rhet.,  I,  pp.  233  ff. 


136  PETER  RAMUS 

The  content  of  what  one  is  to  say  must  not  be  con- 
fused, as  in  Cicero,  with  the  outer  form. 

Ramus,  therefore,  defines  rhetoric  as  l  the  art 
of  effective  speaking,' 1  and  limits  its  divisions  tq_ 
' expression'  and  'action.'  He  altogether  ignores 
'invention'  and  'arrangement,'  together  with 
'  memory/  which  is  really  a  reflection  of  them,  on  the 
ground  that  these  topics  belong  more  properly  to 
logic,  even  if  all  five  divisions  are  given  by  the  an- 
cient writers.2  Expression  he  defines  as  the  elegant 
adornment  of  speech,3  and  he  divides  it  into  '  tropes  ' 
and  'figures.'  The  former  of  these  refers  to  the 
figurative  use  of  single  words.  It  is  subdivided 
into  metonymy,  irony,  metaphor,  and  synecdoche, 
and  some  of  these  classes  are  still  further  divided. 
'  Figures '  indicate  a  change  of  dress  in  a  combina- 
tion of  words,  and  are  of  two  kinds,  —  figures  of 
diction  and  figures  of  thought.  Figures  of  diction 
have  reference  to  a  change  hi  the  outer  form,  indi- 
cated by  a  turn  in  the  rhythm  or  meter,  and  are 
ordinarily  treated  under  'prosody,'  which,  as  has 
been  stated,4  Ramus  does  not  recognize  in  grammar. 

1  Rhetor ica  est  ars  bene  dicendi. 
*Schol.  rhet.,  I,  p.  237 ;  IX,  p.  319. 
» Ibid.,  V,  pp.  290  f. 
4  See  p.  124. 


THE   CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF   THE   TRIVniM      137 

Under  this  head  are  enumerated  nine  figures  of 
speech,  of  which  the  best  known  are  paronomasia, 
climax,  and  anaphor.  Figures  of  thought  imply 
some  movement  of  the  mind  expressed  in  speech,  and 
include  apostrophe,  personification  (prosopopoeia), 
rhetorical  question,  and  other  means  of  enlivening 
a  speech  and  captivating  an  audience. 

His  second  main  topic,  'action,'  which  deals  with 
suitable  delivery,  had  been  valued  up  to  this  time, 
but  had  not  been  explicitly  taught.  With  Ramus  thjs_ 
subject  comprises  the  use  of  the  voice  and  gestures. 
Under  the  head  of  vocal  control,  he  discusses  how, 
both  in  the  case  of  single  words  and  of  sentences  or 
combinations  of  words,  expression  may  be  given 
through  proper  modulation  to  the  various  emotions, 
such  as  fear,  grief,  and  sympathy.  Under  the  other 
division  he  deals  with  all  the  details  of  effective  ex- 
pression through  gestures  with  the  body,  head,  eyes, 
arms,  hands,  and  fingers,  and  withthe_kind  of 
gesticulation  to  be  avoided. 

The  rhetoric  of  Ramus  may  be  outlined  as  more 
fully  indicated  hi  the  analysis  on  the  next  page. 


138 


PETER  RAMUS 


1  12 

•2                                           | 

=i                   1 

Pi 
ijl 


139 

Here,  as  in  grammar,  we  find  a  clear  and  careful 
selection  of  the  subject  matter  according  to  his 
three  principles  for  content  and  his  method  of 
'dichotomy.'  Rhetoric  is  strictly  limited  to  the 
outer  clothing  of  speech,  and  Ramus  is  absolutely 
silent  about  invention,  arrangement,  memorizing, 
parts  of  speech,  syntactical  construction,  and  all 
kindred  topics  that  might  seem  to  overlap  dialectic 
and  grammar.  His  position  in  abbreviating  the 
material  is  again  most  radical.  In  comparison 
with  the  ancient  writers  and  even  his  humanistic 
contemporaries,  at  first  sight  he  gives  the  impression 
of  scantiness  and  inadequacy.  This  is  most  apparent 
in  the  case  of  Melanchthon,  who  so  closely  approached 
him  in  grammar,1  but  whose  rhetoric  held  fast  to  all 
the  traditional  matter,  especially  as  presented  by 
Quintilian.  The  attitude  of  Ramus,  however,  is  here 
consistent  with  his  point  of  view  in  the  other  liberal 
arts,  and  he  defends  it  on  the  score  of  good  pedagogy. 
He  is  actuated  by  the  principle  of  not  overburdening 
the  youth  early  in  school  life  with  a  lot  of  abstract 
conceptions  that  mean  little  or  nothing  to  him.  His 
preference  is  to  give  him  only  such  elements  as  can 
easily  be  grasped  and  leave  all  the  rest  to  practice 

1  See  pp.  131  f. 


140  PETER  RAMUS 

through  reading.  However,  as  we  shall  see,1  it 
is  only  by  means  of  dialectic  that  rhetoric  attains 
to  real  completion. 

The  method  that  Ramus  advocated  for  teaching 
toric,  which  was  to  be  carried  out  in  the  fourth  year 
f\'of  the  course,  was  similar  to  that  of  grammar.  It 
•*»  consisted  in  a  close  combination  of  theory  and  prac- 
tice. In  'explanation,'  rules  were  progressively  laid 
down,  and  'practice'  in  them  was  afterward  attained 
by  the  twofold  process  of  'analysis'  and  'genesis.'2 
The  pupil  obtained  some  practice  by  analyzing  the 
authors  that  had  become  known  during  his  three 
years  in  grammar,  but  the  model  for  the  right  use 
of  the  voice  and  gesticulation  the  teacher  had  him- 
self to  furnish,  since  a  literary  passage  is  necessa- 
rily silent  on  these  points.  Wherever  he  could,  the 
instructor  quoted  from  actual  speeches,  and  called 
attention  to  the  laws  of  the  art.  He  asked  whether 
this  kind  of  speech,  that  modulation  of  the  voice, 
and  such  and  such  gestures,  were  most  fitting.  Even 
more  than  in  the  other  arts,  the  spoken  word  was  of 
the  utmost  importance,  and  for  that  reason  the 
teacher  had  to  be  a  practical  orator,  as  well  as 

1  See  p.  148. 

3  See  pp.  117  and  133. 


THE   CONTENT   AND  METHOD   OF   THE   TRIVIUM      141 

versed  in  the  precepts  of  rhetoric.1  After  the 
'analysis,'  'genesis'  in  this  subject  was  secured  by 
working  out  a  theme  for  delivery,  at  first  according  to 
a  definite  model  and  later  with  greater  independence. 
To  guard  against  superficiality,  Ramus  advised,  as 
the  ancient  rhetoricians2  had,  that  the  oration  be 
written  down  before  it  was  delivered.  While  in  the 
year  devoted  to  rhetoric  Ramus  thought  it  an  error 
to  repeat  the  material  acquired  in  grammar,  he  strove 
to  see  that  the  pupil  did  not  lose  the  fruit  of  his  ear- 
lier work.  The  teacher  of  rhetoric  was  to  insist  that 
pure  speech  be  observed  and  thus  amalgamate  the 
result  of  both  arts.  This  method  of  economy  Ramus 
calls  'combined  use,'  and  energetically  defends  its 
advantages  against  the  protests  and  even  the  abuse 
of  the  conservatives.3 

But  the  soul  of  the  system  and  the  true  renown  of 
Ramus  rest  in  his  reconstruction  of  dialectic.  Said 
he  himself:  "If  I  had  to  pass  judgment  upon  my 
own  works,  I  should  desire  that  the  monument  raised 
to  my  memory  should  commemorate  the  reform  of 
logic."4  For  it  was  his  improvements  in  this  sub- 

1  Schol.  rhet.,  XVIII,  381. 
*SchoL  dial.,  XX,  603. 
» See  pp.  159  and  165. 
*  Dialectics  libri  duo,  Preface. 


142  PETER  RAMUS 

\  ject  that  started  the  reformation  that  Ramus  made 
\  in  all  the  other  liberal  arts  and  served  as  his  f ounda- 
I  tion  for  their  organization.  It  gave  his  system  and 
'his  texts  an  honorable  position  up  to  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  has  always  constituted  his  most  endur- 
ing title  to  the  esteem  of  philosophers,  scholars, 
and  educators.  The  success  of  these  reforms  was  won 
only  after  a  long  and  stubborn  fight,  since  dialectic 
had  dominated  all  the  medieval  fields  of  knowledge 
and  its  grip  upon  the  academic  world  was  practically 
identical  with  that  of  Aristotle.  For  three  centuries 
(the  cultural  centers  had  been  offering  instruction  in 
the  Organon  enlarged  by  the  medieval  commentaries, 
and  had  mixed  its  positions  in  with  grammar, 
rhetoric,  and  metaphysics.  Dialectic  and  other  sub- 
jects had  in  consequence  become  a  mere  formal- 
ism, empty,  dry,  and  much  too  difficult  for  youthful 
minds.  The  pupils  became  lost  in  the  labyrinths.  No 
effort  was  made  by  dialectic  instruction  to  find  truth 
or  to  prepare  for  life,  but  the  end  and  aim  was  to 
prepare  for  school  disputations.  The  humanists  had 
tried  hard  to  overcome  this  barren  condition  of  logic, 
and,  before  the  time  of  Ramus,  Valla  had  written 
Dialectic  Disputations,  Agricola  had  produced  his 
work  On  the  Institutes  of  Dialectic,  and  Vives  had  is- 


THE   CONTENT   AND   METHOD   OF   THE   TRTVIUM      143 

sued  his  three  books  On  the  Transmission  of  Learning. 
Although  Paris  remained  faithful  to  the  scholastic 
dialectic,  and  the  theological  faculty  in  particular 
opposed  with  all  its  might  any  sort  of  innovation, 
these  efforts  of  the  humanists  had  paved  the  way 
for  independence  of  thought  and  the  assertion  of 
common  sense.  It  was,  however,  the  more  vig- 
orous cultivation  of  the  field  by  Ramus  that  was 
largely  the  cause  for  the  germination  of  the  seed 
which  had  been  sown. 

The  dialectic  reform  of  Ramus  falls  naturally 
under  the  two  heads  which  he  himself  distinguishes. 
These  relate  to  the  destructive  or  'refutative'  side 
of  his  work,  in  which  he  makes  an  examination  of 
the  current  dialectic  and  refutes  the  errors  that 
injure  accuracy  and  proper  arrangement  in  the 
art;  and  to  the  constructive  or  'demonstrative' 
side,  where  he  makes  a  dogmatic  exposition  of  the 
art  of  thinking.  The  former  phase  of  his  work 
appears  hi  its  most  extreme  form  in  the  Animadver- 
sions upon  Aristotle.  As  has  been  shown,1  he  is 
altogether  too  severe  with  Aristotle,  failing  utterly 
to  see  the  merit  of  his  work,  and  accusing  him  of 
obscurity,  confusion,  and  contradiction,  and  even 
1  See  pp.  30  £. 


144  PETER  RAMUS 

of  puerility  and  ineptitude.  To  excuse  this  vehe- 
mence, we  must  recall  the  dogmatism  of  the  times,  the 
stupidity  and  fanaticism  of  the  defenders  of  Aris- 
totle, and  the  intolerable  yoke  with  which  they  were 
endeavoring  to  burden  all  intelligence  and  love  of 
truth,  science,  and  progress.  But  these  ebullitions 
of  his  youthful  audacity  were  afterward  somewhat 
cooled.  In  later  editions  of  the  Animadversions  he 
was  more  moderate,  and  in  his  Studies  on  Dialectic 
and  the  works  that  grew  out  of  his  contest  with 
Schegk  he  even  shows  a  great  admiration  for  Aris- 
totle and  professes  to  be  a  better  Peripatetic  than 
his  adversaries. 

This  milder  tone  is  also  shown  in  his  borrowing 
certain  detached  principles  from  Aristotle  to  shape 
his  own  works.  While  Ramus  never  accepted  the 
system  of  Aristotle  as  a  whole,  we  have  seen 1  that 
he  at  least  obtained  the  laws  by  which  he  selected 
his  content  hi  all  studies,  directly  or  indirectly, 
from  a  treatise  of  that  philosopher.  These  princi- 
ples are  consequently  applied  in  the  '  demonstrative ' 
or  expository  side  of  his  dialectic,  which  appears  hi  a 
succession  of  publications  at  different  periods.2  The 

1  See  pp.  1 10  ff . 

J  E.g.,  Dialectics  Partitions*  or  Institutiones,  Dialectique,  Dia- 
lectics libri  duo,  and  Schola  in  liberates  artes. 


THE    CONTENT   AND  METHOD   OF   THE   TRTVIUM      145 

scholastic  works  on  dialectic  in  general  use  brought 
into  their  subject  matter  parts  that  belonged  rather 
to  other  arts,  such  as  grammar,  rhetoric,  and  ethics, 
but,  subject  to  his  three  laws,  Ramus  confined  his 
material  strictly  to  the  art  of  thinking. 

This  discipline,  he  claimed,  should  be  constituted 
as  nature  teaches  it,  without  regard  to  the  prejudices 
or  opinions  of  men.  It  should  be  determined 
according  to  our  experience  and  observation  of 
reasoning  in  daily  life,  for  the  rules  of  thought 
should  be  formulated  after  the  fashion  hi  which  our 
ordinary  common  sense  solves  problems.  We  should, 
he  states,  thoroughly  investigate  how  men  use  their 
reason.1  The  way  of  discovering  this  method  of 
nature  is  given  at  length  in  an  early  work:- 

"  Wherefore  to  understand  the  functioning  of 
reason,  observe  among  the  thousands  of  men  those 
most  distinguished  for  their  natural  ability  and 
sagacity  and  suppose  they  have  to  give  their  advice 
in  the  discussion  of  an  important  matter.  Their 
reasoning  ought  to  give  you  an  image  of  the  nature 
of  reason,  even  as  a  faithful  mirror.  Examine,  then, 
what  those  advisers,  through  whom  nature  reveals 

1  Cf .  Vera  logics  artis  descriptio  proficisci  debet  a  naturalis  rationis 
et  usus  observation  (Schol.  dial.,  XX,  941). 

X, 


146  PETER  RAMUS 

herself,  wish  to  do.  First,  if  I  mistake  not,  they 
will  search  silently  in  their  minds  for  every  possible 
reason,  and  will  invent  every  possible  argument  by 
which  to  exhort  you  to  undertake  what  is  contem- 
plated or  to  turn  you  from  it.  Then,  when  they  have 
found  satisfactory  arguments,  they  will  express  their 
thought,  not  at  random,  but  in  order  and  methodi- 
cally; not  content  with  demonstrating  each  separate 
point  elegantly  and  forcefully,  they  will  embrace  the 
question  as  a  whole,  descending  from  the  most 
general  ideas  to  the  individual  and  particular  cases 
falling  under  them.  If  this  is  their  procedure  in  a 
single  discussion,  there  is  the  greater  argument  for 
their  following  it  when  they  study  the  nature  of 
reasoning  in  its  entirety,  as  did  the  first  philosophers, 
who  had  no  artificial  logic  at  all.  Hence  at  all 
times  that  an  occasion  arises  for  exercising  our  rea- 
son, nature  invites  our  minds  to  a  twofold  effort :  on 
the  one  hand,  greater  activity  and  more  penetration 
for  solving  the  problem;  and  on  the  other  more 
calm  reflection  for  examining  and  weighing  that 
solution  and  properly  arranging  its  various  parts. 
Herein  we  recognize  with  certainty  the  action  of 
nature  from  which  science  should  never  depart, 
but  should  follow  religiously,  for  it  will  have  fulfilled 


147 

its  purpose  only  when  it  has  reproduced  the  wisdom 
of  nature.  Science  ought,  therefore,  to  study  the 
lessons  that  are  innate  in  select  minds;  and  then, 
when  it  has  collected  them  with  care,  it  should  in 
turn  transmit  them  in  their  most  natural  order, 
and  upon  them  as  a  model  should  formulate  the 
rules  for  those  who  desire  to  reason  well.  Thus 
dialectic  should,  as  it  were,  first  be  the  pupil  of 
nature,  but  should  later  become  her  schoolmistress, 
for  nature  is  by  no  means  so  energetic  and  strong 
that  she  cannot  gain  an  advantage  through  under- 
standing herself  and  recognizing  her  functions,  nor 
yet  so  feeble  and  languishing  that  she  cannot,  with 
the  help  of  this  art,  acquire  greater  power  and  in- 
tensity."1 

Hence  Ramus  would  base  dialectic  upon  actual 
experience  and  usage.  As  grammar  and  rhetoric 
were  to  be  founded  upon  the  practice  of  those  who 
wrote  and  spoke  well,  dialectic  is  to  take  its  principles 
and  rules  from  the  procedure  of  those  best  fitted  to 
reason ;  namely,  the  wise.2  His  very  practical  dialec- 

1  DiakcticcE  partitiones,  fol.  3,  4;  Schola  diakctica,   IV,  pp. 
146  flf. 

2  After  this,  we  can  better  understand  the  significance  of  the 
term  'utilitarian/  with  which  he  was  frequently  taunted.    See 
P-  57- 


148  PETER  RAMTTS 

tic,1  therefore,  is  more  the  art  of  persuasion  and  ex- 
position than  of  the  discovery  of  truth.  With  him 
the  subject  leaned  toward  rhetoric,  and  could 
better  be  learned,  he  held,  by  observing  Cicero  than 
by  studying  the  canons  of  the  Organon.2  At  the 
outset  of  his  treatises,  he  defines  dialectic  as  'the 
art  of  discussing  well,' 3  and  from  the  two  methods 
we  have  just  seen  that  he  discerned  in  the  reasoning 
of  the  wise,  it  is  divided  into '  invention '  and '  arrange- 
ment.'4  The  former  division  of  the  subject,  which  he 
defines  as  that  of  'inventing  the  arguments,'5  is  con- 
cerned with  the  separate  parts  of  which  the  subject 
is  composed.  The  latter,  defined  as  'the  suitable 
arrangement  of  the  things  invented,' 6  deals  with  the 
combination  and  classification  of  these  parts  in  the 
completed  presentation. 

1  See  pp.  1 54  f .       2  Hence  Prantl  calls  it '  Ciceronian-rhetorical.' 

3  Dialectica  est  ars  bene  disserendi  is  the  opening  of  his  Latin 
treatises. 

4  Inventio  and  judicium  (cf .  Cicero)  or  dispositio.    Dial,  libri  duo, 
Book  I,  Chap.  II;  Dialectique,  p.  4.     Here  again  his 'dichotomy' 
is  in  evidence.    These  are  the  main  divisions,  it  will  be  noted,  that 
are  usually  assigned  to  rhetoric,  but  which  Ramus  discarded  from 
that  subject.    See  p.  136. 

5  Pars  de  inveniendis  arguments  or  doctrina  cogitandi  et  inve- 
niendi  argumenti. 

6  Apia  rerum  inventarum  cottocatio  or  parsde  disponendis  argu- 
mentis  ad  judicandum. 


THE   CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF   THE   TRTVIUM      149 

'Invention'  is  separated  into  two  main  groups 
of  arguments,  —  'artificial,'  which  are  demonstrated, 
and  'inartificial,'  which  are  assumed.1  Under  these 
heads,  Ramus  arranges  all  the  chief  forms  of  argu- 
ment into  which  human  thought  falls,  and  illustrates 
them  with  examples  from  the  classical  poets  and 
orators.  Of  the  artificial  arguments  the  first  four 
are  based  on  (i)caus£s.  which  are  to  be  distinguished 
as  'efficient,'  'material,'  'formal/  and 'final';2  (2) 
effects;  (3)  'subjects'  or  presuppositions,3  and 
(4)  adjuncts.4  These  all  come  under  the  head  of 
agreeing,5  but  there  are  also  disagreeing  6  arguments ; 
among  which  are  included  (5)  'different'  and  'op- 
posed.' Besides  these  five  groups,  which  are  all 
simple,  there  are  (6)  compound  arguments.  While 
these  groups  are  'primary,'  there  are  also  'secondary' 

1  Argumentum  est  artificiale  aut  inartificiale.     Artificiale,  quod 
ex  se  arguit. 

2  These  classes  of  causes  are  borrowed  from  Aristotle. 

3  The  word  used  is  subjecta  (Aristotle's  vjroKetju.eva).     Ramus  thus 
explains   it:  subjectum   est,   cut   aliquid  conjungitur.     Anima   est 
subjectum    scientist,  ignorantite,    mrtutis,    vitii;  quia   hac    prater 
essentiam  accedunt. 

4  Adjunctum  est,  cui  aliquid  subjicitur. 

5  Consentaneum  est  quod  consentit  cum  re  quam  arguit. 

•  Dissentanea  is  used  here.  Like  consentanea,  it  is  borrowed 
from  Cicero  and  indicates  again  the  leaning  of  his  dialectic  toward 
rhetoric. 


150  PETER  RAMUS 

arguments.  The  latter  are  distinguished  as  (7)  quali- 
tative,1 which  relate  to  names  rather  than  things  and 
may  be  connotative  and  denotative,  (8)  distributive, 
or  (9)  definitive.  The  second  main  division  of  the 
classes  of  arguments,  'inartificial'  or  (10)  assumed,2 
embraces  'divine'  and  'human'  testimonies  that 
have  been  inherited,  and  these  may  be  further 
divided,  the  one  as  it  comes  from  oracles  or  proph- 
ecies, and  the  other  from  actual  laws  or  from  the 
sanction  of  proverbs. 

The  second  book  treats  the  second  part  of  dialectic, 
—  ' arrangement.'  Here  also  is  a  twofold  division,  - 
the  'axiom'  or  proposition,3  and  the  'dianoia'  or 
deduction.4  Deduction  is  itself  divided  into  syllo- 
gism and  'method.'  There  several  divisions  of  the 
propositions  are  suggested,  but  it  is  sufficient  to 
note  here  its  '  quality '  as  affirmative  or  negative,  and 
its  'quantity'  as  general  or  special.  The  syllogism 
consists  in  deriving  a  conclusion  from  a  'proposition' 

1  Notatio  (Aristotle's  <rv/x/8oAov  or  <rv£vyov)  est  nominis  interpre- 
tatio. 

2  These  categories  for  reducing  the  terms  of  thought  to  ten  chief 
classes  were  borrowed  from  Aristotle. 

3  Axioma  est  dispositio  argument*  cum  argumento,  qua  esse  ali- 
quid  aut  non  esse  judicatur.    Latine,  enunciatum  dicitur. 

4  Dianoia  est  cum  aliud  ex  olio  deducitur. 


THE   CONTENT   AND  METHOD   OF  THE   TRIVIUM      151 

and  an  'assumption/  or  a  major  and  minor  premise. 
It  includes  two  classes,  —  the  '  simple '  or  categorical 
and  the  'conjunctive'  or  conditional,  the  latter  of 
which  is  divided  into  hypothetical  and  disjunctive. 
The  categorical  syllogism,  which  consists  in  a 
judgment  derived  from  two  simple  propositions,  is 
divided  according  to  quantity  and  quality  into 
fourteen  'modes.'  These  correspond  to  those  of 
the  first  three  'figures'  in  Aristotle,  as  Ramus  rejects 
the  fourth  figure,  with  its  five  modes,  as  invalid. 
The  hypothetical  and  disjunctive  syllogisms,  so 
named  from  the  nature  of  their  premises,  have 
each  two  modes,  one  of  which  leads  to  positive 
conclusions  and  the  other  to  negative.  Ramus  also 
explains  the  meaning  of  several  other  forms  of  the 
syllogism,  —  enthymeme,  induction,  example,  di- 
lemma, and  sorites,  through  which  false  conclusions 
are  derived.  To  the  enthymeme  and  the  sorites  he 
grants  a  certain  validity,  but  the  syllogisms  cited, 
he  declares  in  closing,  are  'the  golden  rule'  by  which 
the  good,  just,  true,  useful,  and  their  opposites  can 
be  judged. 

'Method,'  the  other  form  of  deduction,  is  defined 
as  "  the  arrangement  of  a  variety  of  arguments  so  that 
the  first  in  importance  is  placed  first,  the  second  next, 


152  PETER  RAMUS 

the  third  in  the  third  place,  and  so  on  in  order." 
This  process  is  divided  into  the  method  of '  learning ' 
and  that  of  'sagacity.'  There  is  apparently  no 
difference  in  their  origin,  nature,  and  purpose,  but 
they  represent  one  and  the  same  method  in  two  fields 
and  compose  simply  a  twofold  phase  of  one  process. 
The  method  of  'learning'  is  strongly  scientific,  and 
follows  the  laws  of  logic,  going  from  definitions  and 
general  principles  to  the  distribution  and  special 
arrangement  of  parts.  Just  as  this  method  is  used 
in  the  liberal  arts,  'sagacity'  is  the  corresponding 
form  among  poets,  orators,  and  historians.  In  the 
latter  case  the  method  is  not  in  logical  form,  but 
is  thoroughly  natural  and  comes  simply  from  the 
application  of  reason  and  wisdom.  The  chapters 1 
in  which  this  whole  subject  is  treated  are  regarded 
by  Ramus  as  the  most  important  part  of  his  dialec- 
tic works.  In  one  place  he  says :  - 

"But  'method,'  both  in  the  form  of  'learning' 
and  of  'sagacity,'  is  the  sovereign  light  of  reason. 
In  this  not  only  have  the  other  animals  nothing  in 
common  with  men,  as  they  may  have  in  the  '  proposi- 
tion,' but  even  men  differ  very  widely  among  them- 

1  Dialectics  libri  duo,  Book  II,  Chaps.  XVII  and  XVIII ;  Dutiec- 
tique,  pp.  119  ff. 


THE    CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF  THE   TRIVIUM      153 

selves  in  the  qualification.  For,  however  much  they 
may  all  naturally  share  in  the  syllogistic  faculty, 
the  number  of  those  who  study  how  to  use  it  well  is 
very  small,  and  of  that  small  number  there  are  still 
fewer  who  know  how  to  arrange  and  judge  according 
to  good  'method.'  By  as  much  as  man  surpasses 
the  beasts  in  the  syllogism,  may  he  himself  excel 
other  men  through  'method,'  and  the  divinity  of 
man  is  reflected  in  no  part  of  reason  so  fully  as  hi  the 
sum  of  that  universal  method  of  judgment." l 

Evidently,  Ramus  holds,  the  way  taken  in  wise  . 
deliberation  is  from  gen^]  |,o  partin^r  and  the  i* 
reader  especially  meets  this  'method'  in  literature, 
since  the  author  necessarily  struggles  to  be  clear  and 
develop  his  material  in  proper  sequence.  If '  method ' 
be  neglected  in  either  science  or  practical  life,  con- 
fusion ensues.  Since  this  method  forms  a  clear 
arrangement  of  material,  it  assists  a  natural  develop- 
ment of  the  pupil's  memory,  and,  hi  consequence, 
the  second  book  closes  with  a  chapter  on  this  mental 
function.  In  this  Ramus  introduced  the  first  rules 
on  memory  that  ever  appeared  in  a  work  on  the  art 
of  thinking,  but  they  were  little  developed  here. 

An  idea  of  the  treatment  of  dialectic  by  Ramus  may 
1  Dialectigue,  p.  135. 


154  PETER  RAMUS 

be  gained  from  the  abbreviated  analysis  on  the  next 
page.  It  can  easily  be  seen  that  the  great  contri- 
butions of  Ramus  to  the  study  of  dialectic  were  brev- 
ity, simplicity,  and  clearness.  As  a  corresponding 
failing,  his  system  has  been  supposed  to  be  somewhat 
superficial.  But  logic  with  him  was  not  the  science 
of  the  normative  laws  of  human  knowledge.  He 
held  it  to  be  simply  the  practical  art  of  debating 
a  question,  and  whatever  subject  matter  is  not  needed 
for  his  purpose,  he  rejects  from  his  treatise.  He  de- 
clines to  consider  any  of  the  fundamental  ontological 
or  epistemological  problems  that  are  often  thought 
to  be  preliminary  to  logic.  He  even  refuses  to  use 
the  word  'concept'  (notio),  since  it  seems  to  him 
too  philosophic,  and  simply  speaks  of  'arguments.' 
Logic  for  him  deals  not  with  the  discovery  of  truth 
so  much  as  with  exposition  and  persuasion,  and  he 
is  inclined  to  make  dialectic  lean  toward  rhetoric.1 
This,  however,  grew  out  of  his  desire  to  produce  a 
practical  and  useful  dialectic,  as  opposed  to  the  formal 

1  This  accounts  for  the  criticisms  of  some  of  his  contemporaries, 
who  declared  that  he  was  another  Erasistratus  and  an  ignoramus, 
and  that  he  wished  to  teach  his  pupils  to  fly  without  wings.  See 
Schegk,  Hyperaspistes  ad  epistolam  P.  Kami,  pp.  4  ff. ;  Ursinus, 
Bedenken  ob  Kami  Dialectica  in  Schulen  einzufiihren  (Heidelberg, 
1586). 


THE   CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF   THE   TRIVIUM 


155 


fl  fil 

'-    B 


*U  s? 

4,11  Ir^  " 

iiiillfp  i 

x  o  tn    *— »      o 

111  *  i 


r 

•3          S 

-                » 

t«>i 

_C  *J 

jf 

'  affections  ' 
(quality) 

'  species  ' 

(quantity) 

i  1 

8 

s 


. 

s  rt  «i.     v 


I  $6  PETER  RAMUS 

definitions,  minute  analyses,  and  barren  rules  of  the 
scholastic  treatises,  and  such  a  simplification  and 
clarity  in  presenting  the  technique  of  the  art  of 
thinking  was  of  much  value  to  education.  More- 
over, his  conception  of  dialectic  would  tend  to  foster 
free  thought  and  inquiry,  and  harmonize  the  rules 
of  thinking  with  nature.  To  be  sure,  he  sought 
these  principles  of  thought  in  the  works  of  the  great 
classical  writers,  rather  than  hi  his  own  reflection, 
and  so  may  have  somewhat  aided  the  formalized 
humanism  eventually  to  establish  a  new  yoke  upon 
intellectual  progress,  but  in  his  time  he  must  have 
been  a  great  factor  in  freeing  education  from  the 
tyranny  of  a  scholastic  conception  of  Aristotle  and 
in  breaking  with  the  barbarism  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
Through  his  dialectic  he  dared  to  tackle  the  philo- 
sophic positions  accepted  unquestioningly  for  several 
centuries  and  to  resist  the  absurd  distinctions  of  the 
schoolmen.  He  made  it  clear  that  it  was  tune  to  de- 
part from  the  tutelage  of  Aristotle,  and  to  this  extent 
he  is  still  contributing  to  the  advancement  of  the 
science  of  logic.  For,  as  has  well  been  said,1  "  he  alone 
dared  to  say  openly  and  without  reserve  what  others 
only  lisped ;  he  alone  realized  what  they  scarcely 

1  Brucker,  Hist.  crit.  philos.,  Per.  Ill,  pars  II,  1.  II,  c.  i,  §  2. 


THE    CONTENT  AND  METHOD   OF  THE   TRIVTUM      157 

dared  to  wish,  in  his  preparation  of  a  new  dia- 
lectic." 

Ramus  deals  also  with  the  method  of  teaching 
dialectic,  which  is  to  occupy  the  pupils  during  the 
fifth  year  of  the  course.  As  in  grammar  and  rhetoric, 
he  insisted  upon  'practice'  as  of  more  importance 
even  than  'explanation.'  His  opponents,  he  main- 
tained, were  teaching  only  'dead  logic,'  and  were 
using  the  precepts  of  the  art  for  a  game  of  ball  over 
which  to  shout  and  quarrel,  and  he  declared  that 
their  sophistic  disputations  over  dialectic  theses 
were  not  only  fruitless,  but  injurious.  Just  as  the 
content  was  to  follow  'nature,'  'practice'  should 
follow  the  mastery  of  content.1  The  teacher  should 
make  an  'explanation'  of  the  logical  rules,  as  con- 
tained in  'invention'  and  'arrangement,'  and  the 
pupil  should  learn  and  discuss  them,  but  the  matter 
could  not  stop  there.  The  knowledge  of  the  classes 
of  arguments  and  the  forms  of  judgment  must  be 
zealously  applied,  if  it  is  to  be  of  value. 

The  material  here  also,  as  in  the  preceding  arts,  is 
to  be  furnished  by  the  classical  writers,  especially 
Cicero  and  Demosthenes.  With  his  conception  of 

1  Dial,  partii.,  fol.  i,  ars  igitur  naturam  sibi  propositam  semper 
habeal,  exercitatio  artem. 


158  PETER   EAMUS 

dialectic,  he  naturally  turns  to  the  orators  for  illus- 
trations, but  he  is  no  longer  satisfied  with  mere 
excerpts.  To  understand  their  argumentation,  whole 
speeches  are  laid  before  the  student.  As  elsewhere, 
in  'practice'  'analysis'  comes  first;  the  arguments 
are  picked  out  and  classified,  and  the  cases  of  '  syllo- 
gism' and  'method'  have  their  'figures'  and  'modes' 
determined.  Then  'practice'  in  'genesis,'  or  pro- 
duction, must  be  afforded,  during  which  the  student 
writes  first  a  close  imitation  of  the  passage,  and  later 
makes  a  more  independent  production.1  Ramus 
furnishes  several  illustrations  of  his  entire  method. 
For  example,  we  may  take  the  speech  of  Cicero, 
For  Milo.  In  the  'analysis,'  he  would  first  have 
the  defense  read ;  then  the  student  should  examine 
all  the  arguments  adduced  and  place  them  ac- 
cording to  the  ten  classes;  and  finally  determine 
the  'premises,'  'conclusions,'  and  'methods,'  accord- 
ing to  which  the  arguments  were  arranged.  In  the 
'genesis,'  what  Cicero  urged  in  behalf  of  Milo  is 
applied  in  a  similar  theme.  For  example,  a  noble- 
man is  to  be  defended  in  an  indictment  for  murder, 
and  the  pupil  has  to  seek  and  arrange  the  arguments 
and  conclusions  in  a  fashion  like  that  of  Cicero. 

1  See  pp.  117,  133,  and  140. 


/  /fct>* 

*v  .^/^    -7  f 

(*s* 


THE   CONTENT  AND   METHOD  OF   THE   TRIVIUM      159 

Gradually,  however,  he  should  strive  not  to  imi- 
tate the  great  Roman  orator  slavishly,  but  to 
become  as  independent  as  possible  and  even  to 
surpass  him.  Throughout  this  training  in  dialectic, 
while,  in  keeping  with  the  law  of  'justice,'  there  is 
no  repetition  of  grammar  and  rhetoric,  no  part  of 
the  instruction  of  the  previous  four  years  is  to  be 
neglected,  and,  according  to  his  principle  of  'com- 
bined use,'1  every  exercise  must  be  couched  in  correct 
grammar  and  ornate  language. 

1  See  p.  141. 


CHAPTER  VII 
CONTENT  AND  METHOD  OF  THE  QUADRTVIUM 

As  we  have  indicated,  Ramus  was  not  satisfied 
to  limit  his  reforms  to  the  lower  trinity  of  liberal 
arts.  He  soon  turned  his  attention  also  to  the 
'esoteric'  studies,  or  quadrivium,  which  in  his  day 
still  included  the  mathematical  subjects  of  arith- 
metic and  geometry,  together  with  music  and  astron- 
omy as  minor  fields.1  Music  had  fallen  into  the 
background  and  he  never  attempted  to  revive  it. 
Astronomy  he  included  to  some  extent  under  his 
wider  term  of  'physics.' 

To  mathematics,  however,  Ramus  gave  great  at- 
tention, and  the  results  of  his  labors  here  are  worthy 
of  more  detailed  consideration  than  could  be  given 
when  dealing  with  the  account  of  his  life.  These 
subjects  have  been  so  immensely  expanded  and  im- 
proved since  his  day  that  a  mere  inspection  of  his  pro- 

1  See  p.  1 20.  Kami  aetiones  dua  in  senatu,  pro  regia  mathematica 
professionis  cathedra,  published  in  two  editions  in  1566,  and  extant 
also  in  Collectanea  prcefaliones,  epistolce,  orationes,  p.  533. 

160 


CONTENT  AND  METHOD  OF  THE  QUADRIVIUM   1 6 1 

ductions  will  give  but  a  very  inadequate  notion  of  his 
actual  contribution.  Up  to  the  last  quarter  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  the  texts  on  mathematics  were  lim- 
ited to  little  more  than  those  of  the  ancients  and  the 
wretched  condensations1  made  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  and  while  just  before  the  close  of  the  century 
a  few  editions  of  Euclid  had  been  published  at 
humanistic  centers  in  Italy,2  little  had  been  done 
with  the  subject.  The  humanists  who  might  have 
collected  and  translated  these  treatises  were  largely 
absorbed  in  the  development  of  linguistic  study.3 
At  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century  conditions 
began  to  improve  ;  a  number  of  earnest  scholars 
came  into  the  field,4  and  several  textbooks  on  mathe- 
matics appeared  in  Germany,  Italy,  and  France. 
But  while  several  prominent  mathematicians  were 
developed  at  Paris  before  Ramus,  he  must  still  be 

^aciuolo's  work  (1494)  and  Valla's  edition  (1498)  were  hardly 
of  this  order,  and  there  were  a  number  of  excellent  modern  works 
on  arithmetic  published  before  1501,  such  as  those  of  Borghi  and 
Calandri. 

2  Such  as  the  1482  edition  of  Ratdolt  in  Venice,  the  1491  edition 
at  Vincentia,  and  Valla's  edition  of  1498. 

*  Even  Sturm  entirely  ignored  the  subject  in  his  curriculum. 

4  Faber  Stapulensis,  Clichtoveus,  Bouvelles,  Budaeus,  Jean 
Fernel,  Oronce  Fin6e,  and  Jacques  Peletier  were  among  those  to 
advance  the  subject  before  the  work  of  Ramus  began. 


1 62  PETER  RAMUS 

accounted  a  pioneer.  Before  his  death  he  had  be- 
come one  of  the  best-known  mathematicians  that 
France  possessed,  and  his  reputation  endured  until 
the  time  of  Descartes.  His  works,  too,  compare 
favorably  with  most  of  the  others1  produced  during 
the  entire  century.  As  late  as  1625,  his  arithmetic 
was  still  in  good  standing,  and  it  was,  together  with  his 
geometry  and  posthumous  algebra,  republished  and 
commented  upon  in  France,  Germany,  Holland,  and 
throughout  academic  Europe.  Moreover,  his  lectures 
on  the  subject  at  the  College  of  France  brought 
into  existence  a  host  of  brilliant  young  mathema- 
ticians, who  became  the  means  of  stimulating  an  in- 
terest and  of  greatly  advancing  the  work  during  the 
next  half  century,  and  at  his  death  he  left  most  of  his 
fortune  to  found  a  chair  of  mathematics  at  the  College 
of  France.  Hence  his  achievements,  crude  as  they 
were,  entitle  him  to  an  honorable  place  in  the  history 
of  mathematics. 

The  special  interest  that  Ramus  showed  in  mathe- 
matics was  probably  due  not  only  to  his  appreciation 
of  the  subject  as  a  means  of  mental  discipline  and  as 
a  key  to  many  practical  pursuits,  but  equally  to  its 
definiteness  and  the  possibility  of  illustrating  thereby 

1  Vfete's  incomparable  work  would  have  to  be  excepted. 


CONTENT  AND   METHOD   OF   THE   QUADRIYIUM       163 


the  three  rules  he  had  laid  down  for  determining  the 
content  of  a  subject.1  He  held  that  the  laws  of 
'justice'  and  'wisdom'  had  been  violated,  and  that 
too  much  complexity  and  obscurity  appeared  hi  the 
current  works  on  mathematics,  and  even  in  Aristotle. 
Ramus  declares  that  the  great  philosopher  mingled 
much  of  the  subject  matter  of  arithmetic  with  that 
of  geometry,  and  treated  geometry  before  arithmetic, 
although  this  forced  him  to  repeat  certain  general 
conceptions,  such  as  'size,'  under  several  heads. 
Most  of  these  difficulties  for  mathematics  could  be 
avoided,  he  insists,  by  sharply  separating  the  fields  of 
the  subjects  and  by  treating  all  general  conceptions 
first.2 

Ramus  declares  the  subject  matter  of  arithmetic 
to  be  that  'of  proper  calculation.'  3  He  divides  it  as 
'simple'  and  'comparative'  or  compound,  and  de- 
votes a  book  to  each  class.  "The  simple  arithmetic 
considers  the  nature  of  numbers  singly,"  while  "com- 
parative arithmetic  treats  the  comparison  of  numbers 
hi  quantity  and  quality."  The  former  includes  no- 

1  Schol.  Math.,  praf.,  in  Collect,  pro:}.,  p.  166. 

1  Schol.  Math.,  I,  pp.  2  ff. 

3  Arithmetics  esl  doctrine  bene  numerandi.  This  seems  to  be 
the  only  one  of  the  arts  where  ars  is  not  used,  but  this  is  probably 
accidental,  as  is  shown  by  Dialectica,  lib.  I,  cap.  HI. 


164  PETER  RAMUS 

tation,  the  four  fundamental  operations,  fractions, 
and  improper  numbers;  the  latter  deals  with 
arithmetical  and  geometrical  proportion,  the  rule 
of  three  ('golden  rule'),  alligation,  equations,  and 
allied  topics.  Geometry  he  calls  '  the  art  of  measur- 
ing properly.'  The  subject  falls  naturally  into  plane 
and  solid,  but  the  division  into  twenty-seven  books 
treats  the  subject  from  the  standpoint  of  separate 
topics  rather  than  of  groups.  His  treatise  on  plane 
geometry  covers  lines,  angles,  and  such  figures 
as  triangles,  quadrangles,  polygons,  parallelograms, 
squares,  and  circles,  together  with  their  relations 
and  subdivisions;  that  on  solid  geometry  covers 
the  properties  and  subdivisions  of  pyramids,  prisms, 
cubes,  spheres,  cones,  and  cylinders. 

The  diagrams  on  the  following  pages,  giving  more 
detail,  show  how  carefully  Ramus  observed  his  fun- 
damental principles  in  the  content  of  mathematics, 
and  how  both  arithmetic  and  geometry  could  be 
divided  according  to  his  favorite  method  of  'dichot- 
omy.' While  by  his  clear  presentation  he  may  have 
sacrificed  something  of  the  rigorous  discipline  that 
has  been  claimed  by  some  as  the  chief  value  in  the 
study  of  mathematics,  he  felt  clearness  to  be  of  most 
importance  and  ruthlessly  eliminated  all  extraor- 


CONTENT  AND   METHOD   OF   THE   QUADRIVIUM      165 

dinary  complexity.  The  order  and  simplicity  of  his 
arrangement  are  admirable,  and  his  demonstrations 
are  clear  and  easily  remembered.  We  are  further 
indebted  to  him  as  perhaps  the  first  to  put  the 
problems  of  Euclid  in  the  form  of  propositions  and 
theorems,  which  has  proven  such  a  boon  for  the 
memory. 

The  method  of  teaching  which  Ramus  advocated 
for  mathematics  was  quite  as  effective  as  that  hi  the 
other  subjects,  and  was  based  on  the  same  principles. 
After  the  rules  had  been  explained  as  simply  as 
possible,  the  pupil's  knowledge  was  put  in  practice. 
Here  again  he  stressed  the  process  of  ' analysis'  and 
'genesis.'  The  examples  were  to  be  borrowed  from 
the  mathematical  writings  of  the  ancients,  chiefly 
Euclid,  or  formed  by  the  teacher  himself.  In  geome- 
try the  figures  were  first  to  be  drawn  by  the  instructor 
and  then  imitated  by  the  student.1  ^  Again,  in  order 
that  the  work  of  the  trivium  might  not  be  forgotten, 
he  advised  that  discussions  be  held  upon  mathe- 
matical theses,  and  that  the  arguments  and  diction 
used  be  held  to  a  high  standard  of  efficiency. 

We  may  now  turn  to  the  other  quadrivial  subject 
upon  which  Ramus  wrote.  Until  his  tune,  'physics,' 
1  See  Prctf.  math.,  in  the  Collect,  praf.,  p.  166. 


1 66 


PETEK    KAMUS 


1 1 


I  Hi 

TO      JX   Q   i 


1  1 


i 


€    1 


1  I 


CONTENT   AND   METHOD   OF   THE   QUADRTVIUM  167 


a'-S  ETC 

-•9  X  s? 

tfi    O    d  Q. 


-  t-l 

I 


Jilo 


1 68  PETER  RAMUS 

like  mathematics,  played  a  decidedly  subordinate 
part  in  the  colleges  of  the  university.  And  neither  in 
his  day  nor  for  a  long  time  afterward  was  it  generally 
dignified  with  careful  organization  or  methodical 
instruction.  Even  the  humanists,  since  natural 
science  lay  quite  outside  their  sphere  of  interest, 
did  little  or  nothing  to  disturb  the  authority  of 
Aristotle  hi  this  field,1  although  they  tried  to  disrupt 
the  traditional  scholastic  methods  and  the  super- 
stitions  of  astrology.  Ramus  undertook  to  intro- 

•  duce  the  same  system  into  the  content  and  method 
rf 

of  physics  as  he  had  in  the  case  of  the  other  liberal 
/  arts.  He  vigorously  attacked  both  the  schoolmen 
and  Aristotle,  and  criticized  the  eight  books  of  the 
latter's  work  on  natural  science 2  in  the  same  number 
of  Studies  in  Physics?  He  claimed  that  this  treatise 
of  the  great  philosopher  secured  its  material  more 
from  logic  than  from  nature,  and  that  Aristotle 
indulged  in  too  many  speculations,  which  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  field  of  physics.  With  some 

JU/_~exaggeration,  he  says  :  — 

/\  "If  one  should  by  means  of  his  senses  and  reason 
I  investigate  heaven  and  earth  and  all  that  therein  is, 

1  Witness  Melanchthon's  Institutiones  physica. 
rj  'AKpoatris-  3  Scholce  physiccK. 


CONTENT   AND  METHOD  OF   THE  QUADRIVIUM      169 

as  a  physicist  ought  to  do,  and  then  compare  his 
results  with  the  Physics  of  Aristotle,  he  would  find 
in  that  work  no  observation  of  anything  in  nature, 
but  only  sophisms,  theoretical  speculations,  and  un- 
supported assertions."  1 

The  proper  method,  he  held,  is  quite  contrary  to 
Aristotle's.  One  should  develop  the  subject  of 
physics  by  avoiding  philosophical  digressions  and 
searching  with  his  senses  through  visible  nature, 
where  lies  the  genuine  and  useful  material,  which 
needs  only  to  be  observed,  tested,  and  arranged 
methodically  for  instruction. 

However,  this  invective  against  senseless  and 
pernicious  abstractions  and  the  suggestion  of  a  real 
investigation  of  nature  must  not  mislead  us  into 
supposing  that  Ramus  himself  held  to  induction  in 
natural  science.  In  building  up  his  physics  he  did 
not  resort  directly  to  nature  for  his  material,  but, 
similarly  to  his  method  with  the  literary  and  argu- 
mentative arts,  he  took  his  facts  largely  from  the 
Physics  of  Aristotle,  the  Natural  History  of  Pliny, 
and  the  Georgics  of  Vergil.  And  the  order  of  ar- 
rangement is  as  deductive  as  it  is  in  his  geometry. 
His  Studies  in  Physics  tell  us  that  the  "aim  of 
1  Prof  at.  physica,  in  the  Cottectan.  prafat.,  p.  69. 


170  PETER  RAMUS 

genuine  natural  science  is  to  study  first  the  heavens, 
then  the  meteors,  then  the  minerals,  vegetables, 
animals,  and  finally  man."  Physics  deals  with 
nature,  which  is  an  'essence  constant  in  itself.' 1 
'God'  and  'intelligence'  (mens)  are  assigned  as  the 
chief  principles  underlying  nature,  but  are  not 
further  mentioned,  since  he  rigidly  eschews  meta- 
physical discussions,  and  he  quickly  turns  to  the 
material  world.  After  a  very  brief  chapter  upon 
forms  of  matter  in  motion,  —  birth,  death,  growth, 
decay,  and  the  like,  he  takes  up  astronomy  and 
deals  with  the  heavenly  bodies,  zones,  poles,  zodiac, 
chronology,  and  temperature.  The  heavenly  bodies 
are  discussed  under  the  first  element, — 'fire.'  The 
three  remaining  elements  include  all  natural  phe- 
nomena. His  chapter  on  'air'  deals  with  clouds, 
thunder  and  lightning,  hail,  winds,  and  rains.  Then 
from  the  phenomena  of  the  air  he  goes  to  'water,' 
under  which  he  considers  oceans,  rivers,  springs, 
and  wells.  Finally,  he  deals  with  the  'earth,'  in- 
cluding the  stones  and  metals  in  its  bosom,  and 
the  plants,  animals,  and  men  that  thrive  upon  it. 
The  outline  on  page  172,  which  is  taken  from  a 

1  Natwa  est  essentia  per  se  constans. 


CONTENT   AND   METHOD   OF   THE   QUADRTVIUM      171 

summary  of  his  lectures  by  one  of  his  pupils,1  will 
give  some  idea  of  the  classification  of  the  subject. 

Thus  in  selecting  the  subject  matter  for  his 
physics  Ramus  treats  the  supersensible  cursorily  and 
devotes  himself  almost  exclusively  to  visible  ob- 
jects. He  purposely  rejects  hypotheses  and  specu- 
lations. Astronomy,  meteorology,  and  agriculture 
occupy  the  bulk  of  his  work,  but  considerable  atten- 
tion is  also  given  to  botanical,  zoological,  and  anthro- 
pological material.  Very  clearly,  however,  he  has 
investigated  none  of  these  topics  for  himself,  but  has 
relied  upon  the  records  of  the  classical  authors.  His 
great  contribution  rests  in  his  substantial  and  objec- 
tive treatment,  free  from  all  the  philosophic  theories 
of  the  times,  and  in  his  excellent  organization  and 
clear  arrangement,  which  passes  down  from  the 
heavenly  bodies  and  the  phenomena  of  the  air  to  the 
earth  with  its  organic  and  inorganic  features,  and 
realizes  its  aim  and  end  in  man. 

This  work  in  physics,  which  was  planned  for  the 
seventh  and  final  year  of  the  course,  was  to  be  taught 
like  the  other  arts,  by  'practice,'  including  'analysis' 
and  'genesis,'  as  well  as  by  'explanation.'  Unfor- 

1  Professio  regia  (pp.  285  ff.),  published  by  Freigius  four  years 
after  the  death  of  Ramus. 


172 


PETER   RAMUS 


tunately,  the  real  spirit  of  science  and  induction  was 
as  yet  so  little  understood  that  the  student  gained 
this  exercise  through  an  interpretation  of  the  descrip- 
tions of  various  classical  authors  rather  than  by 
actual  observation,  and  the  study  became  verbal 
rather  than  scientific.  But,  compared  with  the  texts 
of  the  time,  the  physics  of  Ramus  must  have  pre- 
sented an  admirable  body  of  well-arranged  material 
and  must  have  proved  more  interesting  and  easier 
to  learn. 


'immaterial    (  P**1,,. 
I  intelligence 

'  birth  and  death 

matter  in  motion 

growth  and  decay 
alteration 

change  of  place 

r  constant         {  heavea 
I  stars 

simple 

1  fin 

elements 

air 
inconstant 

Physics, 

water 
earth 

dealing  with 

• 

clouds 

'  nature,  an 

thunders 

essence  con- 
stant in 

Mate- 
rial 

air 

lightnings 

itself,' 
includes  : 

ntu 

dasfiet 

winds 

inorganic  or 

rains 

com- 

' meteors  ' 

oceans 

posite 
of  ele- 

water 

rivers 
springs 

ments 

wells 

{stones 

metals 

.                    colors 

plants 

organic 

animals  and  beasts 

man 

WHEN  Ramus  retired  from  active  teaching  in  1571, 
it  was  understood  that,  in  continuing  his  reform  of 
the  liberal  arts,  he  would  include  treatises  on  ethics 
and  politics,  which  were  coming  to  be  added  in  the 
higher  curriculum  of  the  qttadrivium.1  It  is  even 
stated  that  he  had  prepared  a  work  upon  the  subject 
of  ethics,  which  awaited  only  a  final  revision,  when 
death  cut  short  his  literary  activities.2  If  this 
treatise  was  ever  published  or  even  produced,  how- 
ever, it  has  now  been  lost,  and  we  have  to  depend 
upon  other  works  of  his  for  our  knowledge  of  his 
moral  teachings.  Happily  his  references  to  the  sub- 
ject elsewhere  are  so  extensive  that  it  is  not  difficult 
to  reconstruct  his  general  positions.  His  polemics 
are  developed  in  occasional  outbursts  against  Aris- 
totelianism  in  his  orations  and  more  systematically 

1  See  p.  120. 

2  Referred  to  in  his  Oratio  de  professione  liberalium  artium.  (Paris, 
1563.)     See  p.  104. 


174  PETER  RAMUS 

in  his  Studies  in  Metaphysics.  His  constructive 
attitude  in  pure  ethics  is  found  in  the  treatise  On  the 
Customs  of  the  Ancient  Gauls,  although  this  was  in- 
tended to  be  more  of  an  historical  work  than  a  trea- 
tise on  morals,  and  his  positions  as  a  Christian  ethi- 
cist  are  developed  in  the  second  and  third  books  of 
his  posthumous  Commentaries  on  the  Christian  Re- 
ligion. 

The  ethical  attitude  of  Ramus  in  many  places  is 
purely  anti-Aristotelian  and  destructive.  He  fails 
somewhat  to  understand  Aristotle,  but  as  an  ardent 
Christian  he  evidently  holds  it  incumbent  upon  him 
to  combat  the  paganism  of  that  philosopher.  Like 
most  theologians  until  a  very  recent  day,  he  proves 
a  naive  dualist.  He  cannot  conceive  of  ethics  with- 
out the  direct  action  of  God  upon  the  human  soul. 
Hence  he  inveighs  against  the  scholastic  instruction 
in  Aristotle's  Nicomachean  Ethics,  "where  the  boy 
learns  a  mass  of  impieties :  for  example,  that  the 
principle  and  ideals  of '  the  good '  are  innate  in  every 
man,  that  all  the  virtues  are  within  his  own  power, 
that  he  acquires  them  by  means  of  nature,  art,  and 
labor,  and  that  for  this  work,  so  grand  and  so  sublime, 
man  has  need  of  neither  the  aid  nor  the  cooperation 
of  God.  Nothing  about  providence;  not  a  word 


HIGHER  AND  PROFESSIONAL   STUDIES  175 

about  divine  justice ;  in  short,  since,  in  the  eyes  of 
Aristotle,  souls  are  mortal,  the  happiness  of  man  is 
reduced  to  this  perishable  life."  "Such,"  he  ex- 
claims, "is  the  philosophy  out  of  which  we  build  the 
foundation  of  our  religion ! " l  In  fact,  to  the  in- 
genuous mind  of  Ramus,  Aristotle's  very  idea  of  God 
savors  of  atheism.  In  another  connection  he  de- 
clares at  length:  — 

"  God,  according  to  Aristotle,  is  an  eternal  essence, 
which  knows  not  matter,  magnitude,  parts,  division, 
passion,  or  change,  and  leads  a  perfect  and  com- 
pletely happy  existence.  Even  if  this  be  granted, 
what  a  further  mass  of  errors  and  impieties !  God 
is  an  animal;  there  are  as  many  gods  as  there  are 
celestial  globes.  God  has  no  real  power  whatsoever ; 
he  would  not  know  how  to  act  or  move,  had  he 
not  possessed  those  characteristics  from  all  eternity. 
God  is  the  first  cause  of  the  world,  but  without  wish- 
ing or  even  knowing  it.  He  thinks  only  of  himself 
and  disdains  all  the  rest.  He  is  neither  *  creator ' 
nor  'providence.'  He  moves  the  world  eternally 
even  as  the  loadstone  moves  iron.  He  has  neither 
love,  benevolence,  nor  charity.  What,  then,  is  such 

1  Pro  philosophies  Parisiensis  Academics  discipline  oratio.  See 
Collectanea  prcefationes,  epistola,  orationes,  pp.  337  f. 


176  PETER  RAMUS 

an  atheistic  conception  of  God  save  a  Titanic  strug- 
gle against  him?"  1 

Such  is  the  vehemence  with  which  Ramus  ordina- 
rily attacks  the  foundations  of  Aristotle's  ethics,  but 
at  times  he  shows  that  the  ancient  philosopher  had 
anticipated  the  true  Christian  doctrine  and  accepts 
his  positions,  even  at  the  expense  of  certain  usages 
of  the  Church.  For  example,  after  showing  that 
Aristotle  completely  rejected  the  gods  made  in  the 
image  of  man,  he  remarks  that  "this  philosopher, 
pagan  though  he  was,  has  therein  shown  himself 
more  pious  than  a  great  many  Christians,  who  place 
in  their  temples  visible  and  gross  images  of  the  Trin- 
ity, of  which  even  the  mind  can  scarcely  conceive."  2 
Occasionally  he  goes  so  far  as  to  claim  to  rely  abso- 
lutely upon  reason,  and  "not  even  to  employ  any 
argument  drawn  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  nor 
appeal  to  the  authority  of  Christ  and  Moses." 3 
His  commentary  on  the  institutions  and  customs 
of  the  ancient  Gauls,  which  is  outlined  on  page 
179,  treats  ethics  from  the  standpoint  of  the  four 

1  Schol.  met.,  1.  XIV,  at  the  close. 

J  Ibid.,  1.  XII,  cap.  8.  Cf.  Schol.  phys.,  1.  VIII,  toward  the 
end. 

s  Schol.  phys.,  1.  VIII,  at  the  close. 


HIGHER   AND   PROFESSIONAL   STUDIES  177 

cardinal  virtues  and  almost  in  the  terms  of  Plato 
and  Cicero. 

As  a  rule,  however,  Ramus  does  not  desire  any 
such  complete  emancipation.  In  the  treatment  of 
ethics  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Christian  Religion 
he  is  a  true  Protestant  Christian,  and  bases  his  solu- 
tion of  ethical  problems  upon  the  Scriptures,  espe- 
cially the  decalogue  and  the  Lord's  prayer.  Yet  he 
never  hesitates  to  refer  to  examples  from  antiquity 
in  defense  of  his  position,  as  well  as  to  contrast  them 
with  his  conception  of  Christian  ethics.  As  in- 
stances of  this,  we  may  note  his  citation  of  the  Lace- 
daemonian and  primitive  Roman  mandate  to  '  honor 
thy  father  and  mother,'  of  Cicero's  and  Menander's 
prohibition  of  bearing  '  false  witness,'  and  of  a  variety 
of  pagan  warnings  against '  covetous '  action  and  even 
thought.  He  felt,  of  course,  that  the  ancient  world 
was  more  in  harmony  with  the  later  five  command- 
ments, which  deal  rather  with  man's  social  relations 
and  not  so  much  with  his  reconciliation  with  God, 
whereas  the  Christian  world  holds  that  primarily  in 
God,  and  not  in  ourselves,  rests  the  motive  for  human 
struggles  and  human  happiness.1  He  maintains  at 
the  start,  therefore,  that  the  fundamental  principle 

1  Commentaria  de  religione  Christiana,  II,  2-10. 


178  PETER  RAMUS 

of  ethics  is  man's  obedience  to  God  and  his  desire  to 
submit  to  his  will  in  all  things.1  The  means  of  bring- 
ing God  near  and  unifying  him  with  man  is  '  faith ' 
in  the  Father's  benefits  to  his  church  or  kingdom 
upon  earth. 

.  Then,  through  illustrations  from  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  and  quotations  from  other  parts  of  the  New 
Testament,  Ramus  enlarges,  deepens,  and  brings 
out  the  inner  meaning  of  each  one  of  the  command- 
ments. He  converts  all  these  negative  statements 
into  positive  commands,  and  gives  to  the,  Old  Tes- 
tament form  a  New  Testament  content,  thus  produc- 
ing from  a  code  of  statutes  a  system  of  Christian 
ethics.2  In  carrying  this  out,  he  states  that  all  Chris- 
tian duties  and  virtues  can  be  embraced  under  "piety 
and_cha,rity  as  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  law. 
Cbarityjs  both  the  cause  and  effect  of  the  law.  It  is 
filled  with  faith,  hope,  and  sympathy,  and  is  void  of 
jnalice,  pndeT  hatred,  and  injustice.  It  is  the  one 
aji4_a]^comgrehensive  virtue."  3  From  this  root, 
then,  spring  all  the  Christian  virtues  and  all  good 
works.  Content  is  accordingly  given  to  these  general 


1  Commentaria  de  religione  Christiana,  I,  2,  10  and  I,  i,  6  f. 
3  Ibid.,  II,  7,  229;  II,  10,  179;  and  II,  n,  251. 
1  Ibid.,  II,  13,  202. 


HIGHER   AND  PROFESSIONAL  STUDIES 


179 


i 
U 

a    8 
.—    « 


*l  1  b 

SS.sgBg1 

WJ|}| 

Sa-S 


S 


s  i  .1 4 

nil! 


<5     31     ^    >3   *— 
85   <•>   ^    _     §  TS   "" 

IB  TS  S  5   »• 

^^11-11 


l8o  PETER  RAMUS 

principles  in  his  treatment  of  all  human  relations.1 
Marriage,  which  is  concerned  in  the  seventh  com- 
mandment, Ramus  outlines  historically,  beginning 
with  God's  sanction  of  the  relation  in  the  case  of 
Adam  and  Eve,  and  citing  Christ's  approval  by  his 
presence  at  the  wedding  feast  in  Cana  and  by  the 
symbolic  marriage  of  Christ  with  the  Church.  He 
further  holds  that  marriage  should  take  place  only 
between  members  of  the  Church.  He  specifies  that  it 
should  be  forbidden  between  Christians  and  pagans 
and  within  certain  degrees  of  consanguinity,  and  cites 
instances  in  the  Bible  where  violations  of  this  prin- 
ciple have  been  punished.  The  Old  Testament  polyg- 
amy cannot  be  taken  as  the  norm,  for  the  relation 
was  in  its  institution  monogamous.  Celibacy,  how- 
ever, is  not  holier  than  marriage,  and  he  condemns  the 
requirement  in  the  case  of  monks,  nuns,  and  secular 
priests.  Divorce  should  be  granted  only  on  the 
grounds  of  adultery.  The  rule  for  the  relation  of 
parents  and  children  Ramus  finds  in  the  fifth  com- 
mandment, and  more  specific  guidance  he  gathers 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  and  the  works  of 
various  classical  writers.  He  gives  as  a  warning  for 

1  This  forms  the  substance  of  the  second  book  of  his  Commen- 
taries. 


HIGHER   AND   PROFESSIONAL   STUDIES  l8l 

the  violation  of  this  law  the  punishments  meted  out 
to  Ham  and  to  Absalom.  In  all  social,  civic,  and 
political  life,  Ramus  stresses  the  duty  of  truth.  He 
will  not  sanction  'white  lies,'  concealment  of  the 
truth  by  physicians,  rhetorical  turns  of  the  orator,  or 
deceptions  in  diplomacy.  If  the  truth  must  be 
concealed,  the  proper  way  to  achieve  this  is  by  silence 
or  by  such  an  answer  as  will  produce  silence  on  the 
part  of  the  questioner,  as  in  the  case  of  Jesus  with  the 
Pharisees.  Oaths  are  not  unconditionally  forbidden, 
for  Abraham,  David,  Paul,  and  other  biblical  models 
swore  in  God's  name  when  the  circumstances  called 
for  such  action.  In  general,  asseveration  of  this 
sort  should  be  permitted  when  made  concerning  the 
truth,  but  should  not  be  done  wantonly  in  cursing  or 
in  supporting  falsehood  through  perjury.  For  this 
latter  grievous  sin  God  has  often  punished  men 
severely.  Ramus  ranks  tithe-taking  with  usury,  and 
brings  them  both  under  the  eighth  commandment,  — 
not  to  steal.  One  may,  however,  increase  his  posses- 
sions by  all  honorable  means.  Like  the  reformers 
in  general,  this  French  moralist  was  very  strict  in 
his  ideas  of  amusements.  Dancing,  for  example,  he 
would  permit  among  young  maidens  by  themselves, 
as  hi  the  case  of  the  sisters  of  Moses  and  their  com- 


1 82  PETER  RAMUS 

panions,  but  dancing  with  a  member  of  the  opposite 
sex,  in  his  opinion,  was  too  often  associated  with 
immorality.  Obedience  to  magistrates  was  especially 
counseled  by  Ramus,  as  implied  in  the  fifth  com- 
mandment, but,  on  the  other  hand,  magistrates  must 
live  up  to  their  duties.  War  and  capital  punishment, 
he  maintains,  are  somewhat  limited  in  their  extent 
and  character  by  the  sixth  commandment,  although 
they  may  be  justified  in  the  case  of  murder,  unjust 
attacks,  or  defense  of  one's  native  land. 

After  the  detailed  discussion  of  'obedience'  he 
takes  up  the  Christian  duty  of  'prayer.' 1  This  atti- 
tude is  an  evidence  of  piety,  and  the  other  great  proof 
of  faith.  It  is  the  gift  of  God  himself ,  since  it  is  he 
that  kindles  the  zeal  for  it  in  us,  and  his  fatherly  rela- 
tion through  Christ  is  justification  for  it  in  the  faith- 
ful soul.  "  Christ  is  our  mouthpiece,  through  whom 
we  talk  to  the  Father;  our  eye,  through  whom  we 
see  him ;  our  right  hand,  through  whom  we  make 
offerings  to  him."  2  Hence  it  is  the  Father  himself 
who  inspires  us  to  prayer,  and  gives  us  in  his  son  the 
pledge  of  being  heard.  Prayer,  therefore,  is  the  ex- 

1  To  this  subject  he  devotes  the  third  book  of  his  Commentaries, 
just  as  the  second  was  concerned  with  'obedience  to  the  divine  law.' 
*lind.tUI,  2,208  ff. 


HIGHER  AND  PROFESSIONAL   STUDIES  183 

pression  and  proof  of  Christian  life,  and  in  it  penitence 
is  revealed.  As  the  new  life  is  expressed  in  prayer, 
we  are  strengthened  and  advanced  in  the  fight  against 
our  evil  inclinations.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to 
renew  prayer  daily  and  ask  forgiveness  for  our  sins, 
since  continual  and  manifold  temptations  are  con- 
stantly arising  both  from  our  misfortunes  and  our 
prosperity.1  He  further  makes  a  gradation  in  skis 
from  the  standpoint  of  heinousness  and  worthiness 
of  punishment.  The  most  unforgivable  breach  is 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  hi  the  case  of  the  \s 
Pharisees  that  attributed  the  miracles  of  Jesus  to 
demons.2 

The  Lwd's  prayer  Ramus  holds  to  be  a  model 
for  all  conditions  of  life,  and  the  treatise  on  prayer 
is  clearly  a  detailed  paraphrase  and  explanation  of 
its  several  petitions.  It  is  not  necessary  to  enter 
further  into  his  discussion,  but  it  is  of  interest  to  note 
the  ingenious  comparison  that  he  makes  between  the 
ten  commandments  and  the  various  petitions  of  the 
Lord's  prayer.  The  second  half  of  the  prayer  is 
shown  to  correspond  in  general  to  the  second  half  of 
the  decalogue.  This  analogy  is  not  so  much  one  that 
is  strained  after  in  an  effort  to  attract  and  hold  the 

1  Ibid.,  Ill,  8,  241  £.  2  Ibid.,  Ill,  9. 


184  PETER  RAMUS 

attention  of  the  reader,  as  it  is  intended  to  convince 
him  that  the  Christian  life,  in  fulfilling  the  law,  mani- 
fests itself  as  in  harmony  with  the  benefits  for  which 
we  are  bidden  to  ask.1 

It  can  thus  be  seen  that  the  Ramian  ethics,  like 
all  treatises  until  the  last  half  century,  was  essen- 
tially dogmatic,  and  shades  off  into  what  may  be 
more  properly  called  'theology.'  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  Ramus  includes  both  subjects  in  a  single  work, 
his  Four  Books  of  Commentaries  on  the  Christian 
Religion?  The  two  middle  books,  which  have  been 
discussed,  are  really  ethical  and  deal  with  '  obedience' 
and  'prayer,'  but  the  first  and  last,  upon  'faith'  and 
'the  sacraments'  respectively,  would  come  rather 
under  the  head  of  theology.  Yet,  as  compared  with 
the  treatises  of  the  times,  especially  those  of  the 
orthodox  Catholic  authorities,  Ramus  is  not  guided 
by  dogmatism.  He  strives,  like  most  of  the  reformed 
theologians,  to  deliver  the  subject  from  all  the  idle 

1  Ibid.,  Ill,  10,  249. 

*  This  treatise  was  begun  in  Switzerland  and  Germany  in  1 568- 
1569,  and  the  outline  laid  before  the  best  known  Protestant 
theologians.  It  was  completed  upon  the  return  of  Ramus  to  Paris, 
but  was  not  published  until  four  years  after  his  death,  when  his 
pupil,  Banosius,  got  out  an  edition  at  Frankfurt.  See  pp.  95  and 
96  f. 


HIGHER  AND  PROFESSIONAL  STUDIES  185 

questions  and  various  subtleties  with  which  the 
scholastics  had  embarrassed  it.  He  was  disgusted 
with  the  unfruitful  learning,  formal  attitude,  and 
dissociation  with  life  in  the  theology  of  the  times, 
and  struggled  to  advocate  upright  living  rather  than 
mere  doctrine.  He  wished  to  make  the  Scriptures 
the  supreme  rule  of  faith,  and  continually  expressed 
a  wish  for  exact  translations  in  both  Latin  and  the 
vernacular,1  but  he  stressed  the  knowledge  of  re- 
vealed truths  less  than  actually  putting  them  into 
effect. 

His  practical  point  of  view  is  first  embodied  in  his 
definition  of  theology  as  'the  science  of  living  well.' 2 
He  further  specifies  that  "the  final  purpose  of  the 
science  is  not  mere  acquaintance  with  matters  relat- 
ing to  it,  but  use  and  practice,"  and  that  by  'well 
living'  is  meant  "living  in  harmony  and  conformity 
with  God,  the  source  of  all  good  things."  This 
attitude  in  theology  cannot  but  remind  us  again  of 
the  reproach  of  being  'utilitarian'  made  by  his 
opponents,3  and  of  his  definitions  in  the  various 

1  Illustrations  of  this  desire  were  found  in  his  Advice  to  the  King 
on  the  Reformation  of  the  University  and  his  letter  to  the  Cardinal 
of  Lorraine  in  1570.  See  pp.  84  and  103. 

*  Comm.  de  relig.  Christ.,  I,  i,  6.    Cf.  I,  25,  89. 

» See  p.  57. 


1 86  PETER   RAMUS 

liberal  arts.1  Ramus  himself  says:  "In  the  same 
/  way  the  liberal  arts  teach  by  their  precepts  to  speak 
correctly,  to  make  an  effective  speech,  to  reason  well, 
to  calculate  well,  and  to  measure  well,  respectively." 
Hence,  since  theology  should  be  of  practical  value, 
he  holds  that  it  must  not  be  filled  with  fine  techni- 
calities, but  should  be  intelligible  and  popular. 
/  "As  I  venerate  and  honor  the  mystery  of  sacred  and 
divine  things,  so  I  desire  all  instruction  relating  to 
these  matters  to  be  free  from  the  rocks  and  thorns  of 
scholastic  problems,  and  clear  and  distinct  in  the 
whole  course  of  its  exposition  and  treatment." 
The  Scriptures  hold  a  rich  and  manifold  content  of 
divine  revelation,  prophecy,  history,  poetry,  and 
song,  which  may  be  made  of  infinite  value  to  the 
masses.  This  body  of  simple  and  inestimable  truth 
was  praised  most  highly  by  the  Christian  Fathers, 
but  had  been  ignored  and  rejected  by  the  scholastics. 
"Wherefore,"  Ramus  declares,  "I  think  that  this 
recent  darkness  should  be  cast  away  as  far  as  possi- 
ble and  the  ancient  light  brought  back."  3 

1  See  pp.  124,  136,  148,  163,  and  164. 

2  Comm.  de.  Relig.  Christ.,  I,  preface,  p.  i. 

3  Ibid.,  I,  preface,  pp.  i  f.    Cf.  ibid.,  IV,  18,  343 :  "Let  us  dis- 
miss the  profane  logomachies  and  empty  talk;  let  us  speak  the 
words  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  let  us  use  the  language  of  the  Holy 


HIGHER  AND   PROFESSIONAL  STUDIES  187 

In  order  to  restore  this  enlightenment,  he  proposes 
a  twofold  method.  In  the  first  place,  the  text  he 
would  make  should  be  illustrated  with  suitable  pas- 
sages from  the  Holy  Scriptures.  "We  must  act  in 
divine  matters,"  says  he,  "not  otherwise  than  ac- 
cording to  the  divine  writings."  l  The  Old  Testa- 
ment must  be  used  as  well  as  the  New.  Together 
they  form  the  rule  for  piety  and  offer  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  through  Christ.  In  the  Old,  the  covenant  is 
promised ;  in  the  New,  it  is  granted.  Both  contain 
a  revelation  of  God  and  have  substantially  the  same 
content,  although  one  is  prophetic  and  veiled,  and 
the  other  fulfilled  and  clear.2  Secondly,  Ramus 
would  add  to  the  text  and  sacred  examples,  passages 
taken  from  the  greatest  classical  poets,  orators,  and 
historians.  By  this  secular  spicing  of  the  religious 

Spirit.  For  that  is  the  truest  doctor  of  wisdom  and  the  most 
renowned  orator  of  eloquence,  and  it  uses  words  that  can  be  under- 
stood by  us,  —  clear,  significant,  and  suitable.  For  that  will  be  to 
divide  the  truth  rightly.  Then  let  us  not  supplant  divine  wisdom 
and  language  with  sophisms  and  folly."  Similar  is  his  continual 
suggestion  of  a  return  to  the  'golden  age'  of  primitive  Christianity. 
See  ibid.,  I,  6,  25 ;  II,  9,  165 ;  IV,  17,  338;  IV,  18,  342  f. ;  IV,  19, 
344,  and  346  f. 

1  Ibid.,  I,  preface,  p.  5. 

2  See  his  comparison  of  the  decalogue  with  the  Lord's  prayer, 
pp.  183  f. 


1 88  PETER  RAMUS 

materials  he  believes  that  the  attention  of  the  reader 
can  be  attracted  and  stimulated,  "not  that  any  au- 
thority or  approbation  for  religion  can  be  derived  from 
it,  but  that  it  may  be  clear  Christian  theology  is 
not  so  abstruse  or  so  remote  from  the  human  senses 
that  it  cannot  illumine  all  people  with  a  certain 
natural  light,  and  so  its  very  humanity  may  invite 
and  allure  men  to  engage  in  divine  studies  with  eager- 
ness." J  This  use  of  classical  authors  by  Ramus, 
which  is  not  intended  merely  as  a  rhetorical  illus- 
tration of  Christian  truth,  but  a  general  attempt  to 
transmit  its  natural  and  supernatural  revelation,  is 
one  of  the  most  interesting  and  characteristic  features 
of  his  theology.  He  constantly  undertook  to  show 
the  harmony  of  the  loftiest  representatives  of  classi- 
cal antiquity  with  Christian  principles,  to  feel  and 
point  out  in  the  pre-Christian  world  prophecies  of 
Christianity,  and  to  trace  them  up  to  the  appearance 
of  the  Gospel,  not  only  from  Moses  and  Isaiah,  but 
also  from  Plato  and  the  academies  of  ancient  philos- 
ophy. In  this  he  illustrates  the  complete  recon- 
ciliation of  the  Northern  Renaissance  with  the 
Reformation,  and  reveals  himself  a  typical  humanist 
and  a  Protestant  theologian.  While  he  agrees  in  the 
1  Comm.  de  relig.  Christ.,  preface,  p.  2. 


HIGHER  AND  PROFESSIONAL  STUDIES  189 

essentials  with  the  evangelical  principles  of  the  other 
reformers,  in  his  position  toward  classical  antiquity 
he  represents  a  peculiar  breadth  of  view. 

Upon  this  basis  Ramus  organizes  the  material  of 
his  theology.  He  holds  that  obscurity  and  confu- 
sion hi  this  field  have  been  due  in  no  small  measure 
to  the  fact  that  there  are  as  many  methods  of  divid- 
ing and  arranging  the  subject  as  there  are  theologians.  . 

Each  one  feels  fully  entitled  to  his  own  viewpoint,    ^  - 

i 


instead  of  seeing  that,  as  in  any  other  science,  there 


is  only  one  correct  method.  He  insists  that  there  is 
a  definite  arrangement  based  upon  general  logical 
principles,  and  puts  into  effect  his  three  laws  of 
content l  and  his  classification  by  'dichotomy.' 2  In 
accordance  with  this  method,  he  divides  the  science 
into  'doctrine'  and  'discipline.'  The  subdivisions 
of  doctrine,  in  turn,  concern  '  faith '  and  '  works,'  and 
the  classes  of  'works'  are  'obedience'  and  'prayer' 
on  the  one  hand,  and  'sacraments'  on  the  other. 
'Obedience'  and  'prayer,'  which  he  deals  with  in 
books  two  and  three  respectively,3  relate  more  closely 
to  his  ethics  and  are  treated  under  that  head,4 
while  'sacraments'  belongs  with  'faith'  to  his  dog- 

1  See  pp.  no  ff.          *  See  pp.  130,  139,  150,  and  164. 
1  See  pp.  178  ff.  «  See  p.  177. 


i  go 


PETER  RAMUS 


matics,  and  is  treated  in  the  fourth  book.  His  second 
main  division  of  'discipline'  falls  into  the  subjects  of 
'doctrinal  practice-'  and  'church  polity.'  This  part 
of  theology  is  not  treated  in  his  Commentaries,  but 
we  have  other  ways  of  knowing  the  position  of  Ramus 
in  the  matter.1  Meanwhile,  the  general  outline  of 
both  the  '  ethics '  and  the '  theology '  proper  included 
in  his  Commentaries,  is  shown  in  the  following 
diagram. 


Theology  (in- 
cluding Christian 
Ethics),  '  the  art 
of  living  well,' 
is  divided  into : 


r  concerning  faith 


doctrine 


concerning  the  works  of  faith   (  °t*dience  and  prayer 
I  I  sacraments 


discipline        (  doctrinal  Practice 
I  church  polity 


The  first  book  of  the  Commentaries  consists  in  an 
interpretation,  somewhat  scientific,  but  mostly  popu- 
lar, of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  It  is  partly  a  paraphrase 
and  partly  an  explanation  of  the  articles,  and  is 
largely  in  keeping  with  Catholic  doctrine.  The  first 
important  theme  is  that  of  God's  existence,  character- 
istics, and  works.2  God  is  an  eternal,  immortal,  and 
beneficent  spirit,  and  is  incomprehensible  to  man  save 
through  his  works.3  First  the  treatise  deals  with  his 
existence  and  nature,  and  then  with  creation,  provi- 

1  See  pp.  99  ff.  2  See  Chaps.  3-8. 

3  This  last  is  the  reformed  doctrine  that  was  later  known  as  via 

causalitatis. 


HIGHER   AND   PROFESSIONAL   STUDIES  1 91 

dence,  and  predestination,  but  between  the  chapters 
on  creation  and  providence  is  inserted  one  upon  the 
'fall  of  man.'  The  Ramian  conception  of  God  is 
Trinitarian,'  although  it  is  not  treated  as  a  dogma 
until  toward  the  close  of  the  book,  when  the  doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  discussed.1  Upon  creation  and 
providence  Ramus  presents  nothing  worthy  of  note ; 
he  simply  makes  a  collection  of  biblical  and  classical 
quotations  without  going  closely  into  the  kernel  of 
these  questions.  His  explanation  of  the  *  fall  of  man ' 
and  the  consequences  thereof  is  also  superficial  and 
rather  brief.  Our  first  parents,  he  holds,  were  for- 
getful of  the  wonderful  benefits  of  the  Creator  and 
wished  to  be  his  equal,  and  thus  threw  away  the  great 
gifts  they  might  otherwise  have  enjoyed  forever. 
In  place  of  an  immortal  body  they  thus  obtained 
a  mortal  one  subject  to  a  thousand  miseries,  and, 
through  the  contagion  of  the  original  sin,  they  ac- 
quired a  propensity  to  every  sin,  and  polluted  their 
entire  posterity. 

Providence  he  treats  more  fully  later  on  under 
'predestination.' 2  In  comparison  with  the  dogma 
of  Calvin  or  even  Zwingli,  Ramus  presents  a  very 
mild  conception  of  'predestination.'  He  viewed  the 

ll.e.,  I,  19,  72  flf.  2 1,  6,  24.    Cf.  also  II,  i,  27. 


1 92  PETER  RAMUS 

problem  from  an  ethical  standpoint,  while  they 
regarded  it  purely  in  a  logical  light.  Hence  he  can 
speak  of  it  as  "that  act  of  God,  whereby  out  of  his 
free  mercy  he  selects  some  for  everlasting  salvation 
and  out  of  his  justice  relegates  others  to  eternal  per- 
dition." l  This  position  he  supports  by  a  number 
of  Old  and  New  Testament  quotations,  which  furnish 
proof  of  both  election  and  damnation,  and  more 
especially  by  the  approval  of  Augustine  in  his  Letter 
to  Vincent  and  in  his  treatise  On  Predestination. 
Nevertheless,  while  he  rejects  every  evidence  of  uni- 
versal salvation  that  appears  in  the  Bible,  he  appar- 
ently does  so  to  be  consistent  with  his  Calvinistic 
confession  and  does  not  show  at  all  the  conviction, 
zeal,  and  almost  grewsome  satisfaction  that  Calvin 
found  in  this  resultant  of  his  logic.2 

The  second  article  of  the  creed,  which  concerns 
the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  Ramus  interprets 
mainly  in  conformity  with  Catholic  doctrine,  as  de- 
termined by  the  Councils  of  Nicaea  and  Chalcedon. 
Now  and  then,  however,  characteristics  of  the 
Protestant  point  of  view  appear,  and  while  he  uses 
the  traditional  formulations,  he  clothes  them  with 

1 1,  8,  28.  2  See  especially  I,  8,  32. 

1  See  Chaps.  9-18. 


HIGHER  AND  PROFESSIONAL  STUDIES  193 

biblical,  rather  than  scholastic,  concepts  and  terms. 
Another  peculiarity  of  his  treatment  appears  in  the 
way  he  deals  with  the  twofold  nature  of  Christ.  His 
humanity,  he  holds,  is  shown  in  his  birth,  sufferings, 
death,  and  burial,  while  his  deity  is  revealed  in  his 
resurrection.  In  this  way  doctrines  quite  separate 
in  orthodox  dogmatics  are  connected.  He  also  adds 
to  the  description  in  the  creed  an  account  of  the 
human  life  of  Christ,  from  birth  to  the  passion,1 
although  he  renders  it  largely  nugatory  by  main- 
taining that  Christ  reveals  his  real  self  only  in  his 
divinity.2 

But  the  especial  contribution  of  Ramus  is  his 
treatment  of  the  earthly  mission  of  Christ,  which,  as 
we  have  noted,  is  closely  related  to  and  throws  light 
upon,  his  person.  His  work  is  not  brought  under  a 
definite  scheme,  nor  subsumed  under  such  concepts 
as  'reconciliation'  or  'redemption,'  but  the  author 
merely  relates  the  history  of  Christ's  passion.  He 
comments  upon  the  Jewish  and  Roman  methods  of 
capital  punishment,  discusses  the  time  of  the  cruci- 
fixion, collects  typical  references  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  pagan  analogies  from  the  classical  writers, 
and  concludes  with  a  most  graphic  description  of  the 

»I,  ii,  43  *•  •  1, 11,45. 

o 


194  PETER  RAMUS 

mourning  of  Nature  over  the  death  of  the  Savior.1 
Similarly  detailed  descriptions  are  made  of  the  resur- 
rection. He  gives  a  minute  account  of  the  descent 
into  hell,2  and  the  ascent  into  heaven.*  This  final 
abode  of  the  righteous  he  depicts  as  a  definite  place,— 
'the  highest  part  of  the  universe,' 4  and  'the  seating 
at  the  right  hand  of  God ' 5  is  also  locally  conceived. 
The  'final  judgment'  is  likewise  described.  While 
the  whole  narration  is  written  in  highly  impassioned 
and  rhetorical  language,  it  is  only  now  and  then  that 
dogmatism  is  displayed.6 

Next  Ramus  presents  the  third  article  of  the  creed, 
and  interprets  the  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
church  universal,  the  communion  of  saints,  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and 
the  life  everlasting.7  He  first  cites  typical  passages 
where  the  Godhead  and  the  personality  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  are  described,  and  then  names  the  specific 
attributes  and  activities  of  the  final  member  of  the 
Trinity.  In  his  general  attitude  toward  trinitari- 
anism,  he  appeals  to  the  traditions  and  usages  of 

'I,  i2,46ff.  21, 14,  55-  «1, 16,62  f. 

« 1, 16,63.  5 1, 17,66. 

8  Occasional  examples  are  found,  as  in  I,  n,  46;  I,  12,  50;  and 

I,  14,  57  *. 

7  Chaps.  19-25. 


HIGHER  AND  PROFESSIONAL  STUDIES  195 

the  church  and  to  the  Athanasian  Creed,  and  is 
very  strongly  orthodox.1  He  also  retains  unmodified 
the  doctrine  of  the  church  as  the  visible  evidence 
of  the  hi  visible  kingdom  of  God,  —  'perceived  by 
faith,  although  apparent  to  the  eye  of  none.' 2  The 
characteristics  of  the  church  or  kingdom,  however, 
are  developed  according  to  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and 
are  but  little  more  than  a  paraphrase  of  the  words3 
used  there.  '  Holiness '  here  below  is  only  approxi- 
mate and  imperfect,  though  real,  since  it  is  mediated 
through  faith  in  Christ.  Likewise,  the  Christian 
Church  is  'Catholic'  or  universal.  Where  the  Old 
Testament  '  congregation  of  God '  referred  to  a  defi- 
nite land  and  a  peculiar  people,  Christianity  aims  to 
include  all  peoples  and  times,  for  it  is  a  common 
bond  in  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  Gospel.4 
It  is  thus  the  means  of  a  'communion  of  saints' 
or  the  redeemed.  Further,  since  salvation  is  not  self- 
made,  but  is  granted  by  the  grace  of  God  through 
mediation  upon  the  part  of  Christ,  it  comes  about  by 
the  '  forgiveness  of  sins. ' 5 

But  his  conception  of  the '  resurrection  of  the  body' 

»I,  19,  69  ff.  2I,  21,  79. 

*I.e.,  'holy  Catholic  (or  universal)  Church.' 
«I,  22,  77  ff.  5 1,  23,83. 


196  PETER   RAMUS 

Ramus  takes  from  several  of  the  old  Church  Fathers 
rather  than  from  the  Scriptures  themselves.  He  in- 
terprets the  risen  body  as  not  one  of  flesh,  but  of  a 
heavenly  nature,  and  implies  that  the  Bible  is  using 
the  language  of  symbolism.  The  'life  everlasting,' 
which  he  deals  with  in  the  last  chapter  of  the  book,1 
is  considered  less  as  a  specifically  Christian  hope  of 
the  future  than  as  a  general  belief  in  our  immortal 
nature.  The  eternity  of  punishment  in  hell  is 
emphasized,  but  no  purgatory  is  mentioned. 

The  fourth  book,  discussing  the  'sacraments,'  is, 
as  we  should  expect,  much  more  dogmatic  even  than 
the  first.  It  is  more  definite  in  its  facts  and  more  pre- 
cise in  expression,  and  more  nearly  approaches  the 
scholastic  methods  from  which  Ramus  had  broken. 
It  is  more  strictly  theological  than  his  semi-popular 
treatment  of  the  three  articles  of  Christian  faith. 
He  begins  with  a  general  definition  of  the  sacraments 
taken  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  He  makes 
the  sacraments  analogous  to  military  oaths,  and  in- 
clines more  toward  Zwingli  than  Luther  in  his  posi- 
tions on  the  subject.  "A  sacrament,"  he  says,  "is 
an  act  of  public  faith  instituted  by  God  for  commemo- 
rating the  death  of  Christ  and  participating  in  its 


HIGHER   AND  PROFESSIONAL   STUDIES  197 

fruitage  through  an  objective  sign  and  solemn  rite 
of  the  Church." '  He  especially  emphasizes  the 
human  side  of  the  ceremony  by  further  explaining :  - 

"On  the  part  of  God  it  is  a  sign  of  divine  grace  and 
salvation ;  on  our  part  it  is  a  sign  of  confession  and 
duty,  by  which  we  publicly  swear  allegiance  to  the 
name  and  authority  of  God,  and  we  profess  a  divine 
state  of  mutual  charity  among  ourselves,  a  church, 
and  a  religion,  so  that  by  visible  signs  we  make  and 
swear  to  invisible  and  spiritual  treaties."  2 

The  most  complete  illustrations  of  this  general  con- 
ception of  a  sacrament  are  baptism  and  holy  com- 
munion.3 "Baptism  is  the  sacrament  by  which, 
when  once  cleansed  by  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  we  are  initiated  into  a 
profession  of  being  cleansed  of  our  sins  by  the  blood 
of  Christ."  4  "The  Lord's  supper  is  the  sacrament 
by  which  through  the  gracious  acts  of  God  we  use 
the  bread  and  wine  for  professing  that  we  have  been 
raised  up  into  eternal  life  through  the  crucified  body 
of  Christ  and  his  blood  which  was  spilled  for  us."  6 
In  this  conception  of  the  eucharist,  which  he  defends 

1 IV,  1,257.  « IV,  3,  264  f. 

*  IV,  5-7.  *  IV,  5,271. 

6 IV,  8,  284. 


198  PETER  RAMUS 

at  length,  he  diverges  further  from  the  orthodox  views 
of  '  transubstantiation '  than  did  either  Calvin  or 
Luther.  He  evidently  comes  closer  to  the  Zwinglian 
idea  of  a  '  commemoration '  than  to  the  mysticism 
of  Calvin,  which,  on  the  one  hand,  teaches  a  conde- 
scension of  the  divine  powers  of  Christ  into  the  com- 
municant through  the  Holy  Spirit,  and,  on  the  other, 
affirms  an  elevation  of  the  communicant  to  heaven. 
Nor  is  Luther's  '  real  presence '  of  Christ,  in  rejection 
of  which  he  makes  seven  counts,1  or  any  other  form 
of  'consubstantiation,'  acceptable  to  Ramus. 

Even  a  cursory  examination  of  the  organization  of 
his  'theology'  reveals  the  same  procedure,  with  its 
merits  and  defects,  that  Ramus  was  found  to  employ 
in  his  formulation  of  the  studies  in  the  trimum 
and  quadrimum.  The  presentation  is  clear,  simple, 
and  logical,  but  at  times  it  seems  forced  upon  the 
material  and  does  not  altogether  grow  out  of  the 
nature  of  the  discussion.  Subjects  somewhat  cognate 
are  occasionally  sundered  by  a  too  rigid  pursuance  of 
the  schema.  The  doctrine  of  'justification  by  faith,' 2 
for  example,  is  separated  from  'remission  of  sins,' 3 
and  is  explained  later,  while  c  free  will '  is  quite  irrele- 
vantly discussed  in  connection  with  this  latter  topic. 
1  See  Chaps.  11-14.  *  H,  i,  96.  J  I,  23,  83. 


HIGHER  AND  PROFESSIONAL   STUDIES  199 

Yet  the  work  is  most  remarkable  for  its  clarity  and 
its  composition  and  style.  It  exhibits  a  wide  range  of 
scholarship  restrained  by  a  strong  and  simple  logic. 
The  argumentation  on  the  sacraments  is  a  marvel  of 
strength  and  simplicity,  when  we  consider  the  theol- 
ogy of  the  times.  Also  especially  praiseworthy  is  the 
combination  of  active  piety  and  broad  charity  with 
which  the  work  rings.  Most  touching  is  that  last 
chapter,1  in  which  he  makes  his  eloquent  appeal  for 
Christian  unity,  —  an  exhortation  that  had  its 
hearing  years  after  the  author's  voice  was  hushed 
by  martyrdom. 

The  second  part  of  the  Ramian  theology  is  not 
given  in  his  Commentaries,  although  the  division  is 
recognized  there.  His  general  position  on  several 
matters  of  doctrinal  practice  and  church  polity, 
however,  appear  in  his  various  controversies,  and  we 
have  reliable  sources  for  judging  of  the  attitude  and 
opinions  of  Ramus  hi  these  matters.2  On  the  very 
question  of  the  eucharist  mentioned  above,  he  had  a 

iiv,  19. 

2  There  are  extant  three  unpublished  letters  on  these  subjects 
to  his  friend,  the  Protestant  theologian,  Bullinger,  whom  he  had 
consulted  in  shaping  his  views.  See  Lobstein,  Ramus  als  Theologe, 
pp.  63  f..  and  Waddington,  Ramus,  sa  vie,  ses  tcrits,  et  ses  opinions, 
pp.  239-246. 


200  PETER  RAMUS 

public  contest  with  Beza,  who,  of  course,  held  to  the 
Calvinistic  interpretation.  The  use  of  the  words 
'substance'  and  'substantial'  he  recognized  as  an 
effort  to  hold  partially  to  tradition,  and  he  charac- 
terized both  terms  as  'foolish  and  misleading.' l 

With  regard  to  polity,  it  is  obvious  that  Ramus 
advocated  a  more  democratic  government  of  the 
church  than  that  practiced  by  the  Calvinists.  In 
open  opposition  to  Beza,  he  urged  that  the  Calvin- 
istic churches  should  grant  more  powers  to  the 
membership,  and  he  objected  strenuously  to  the  in- 
creasing domination  of  the  elders  and  the  exclusion  of 
the  deacons  from  the  administration,  whereby  the 
church  was  becoming  decidedly  oligarchic.  These 
enlarged  rights  and  privileges  for  the  elders  had  been 
voted  by  the  synod  of  the  church  held  at  La  Rochelle 
in  April,  1571,  under  the  moderatorship  of  Beza. 
Propositions  offered  by  Ramus  as  a  protest  against 
this  aristocratic  innovation  were  adopted  in  March, 
1572,  at  the  provincial  synod  of  Ile-de-France,  but 
were  rejected  at  the  national  synod  of  Nimes  two 
months  later.  This  assembly,  like  that  at  La  Ro- 
chelle, was  dominated  by  the  influence  of  Beza,  and 

1  Haec  utraque  inanis  et  falsa  videatur.  See  Waddington,  op. 
cit.,  p.  434. 


201 

decreed  l  that  the  "discipline  of  our  church  should 
remain  in  the  future,  as  it  has  always  been  observed 
and  practiced  up  to  this  day,  without  making  the 
least  change  or  innovation,  since  it  is  founded  upon 
the  word  of  God."  And  Beza  in  triumphant  bigotry 
declares :  — 

"That  pseudo-dialectician,  whom  several  scholars 
of  old  surnamed  'the  branch  z  of  Mars,'  stirred  up  a 
very  serious  discussion  concerning  the  whole  gov- 
ernment of  the  church,  which,  he  claimed,  ought 
to  be  democratic,  not  aristocratic,  leaving  to  the 
council  of  elders  only  the  proposal  of  legislation. 
Wherefore,  the  synod  at  Nimes,  in  which  I  partici- 
pated, upon  my  advice  condemned  that  view,  which 
is  most  absurd  and  pernicious."  3 

We  find  that  Beza  returned  to  the  subject  later,4 
and  seemed  to  fear  that  Ramus  would  not  submit 
tamely,  but  would  yet  stir  up  dissension.  But  at 
this  tune  the  reformer's  enemies  had  accumulated 
in  sufficient  numbers  to  prevent  further  disturbance 
of  the  theological  strata,  Catholic  or  Calvinist,  and 

1  See  Aymon,  Actes  eccttsiastiques  et  civiles  de  tons  les  synodes 
(La  Haye,  1710),  pp.  112  ff. 

2  A  pun  on  the  name,  Ramus. 

3  Theological  Letters  (Geneva,  1573),  No.  67. 

4  See  ibid.,  No.  68. 


202  PETER  RAMUS 

within  a  few  months  the  courageous  theologian  was 
no  longer  able  to  attempt  any  change  in  ecclesiastical 
'discipline.' 

Had  Ramus  lived  longer,  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  he  would  also  have  written  upon  the  other  pro- 
fessional subjects  of  medicine  and  law.  We  have 
already  seen  in  his  Advice  on  the  Reformation  of  the 
University  l  that  he  had  decided  views  upon  these 
subjects,  and  that  his  emphasis  upon  civil  law,  which 
had  been  entirely  abandoned  at  Paris,  and  upon  labo- 
ratory and  field  work  in  medicine  was  decidedly  mod- 

mftr*  »  ii    ir  i.  ...i j        i-~ 

ern.  While  Ramus  himself  never  studied  medicine, 
and  had  read  only  a  few  works  of  Galen,2  he  recom- 
mended a  logical  arrangement  of  this  subject,  which 
he  probably  hoped  to  have  similar  to  that  he  had 
adopted  for  the  liberal  arts  and  theology.  This  would 
undoubtedly  have  furnished  a  much  clearer,  more 
intelligible,  and  more  humane  presentation  than  that 
in  vogue  for  medicine.  Similarly,  his  knowledge  of 
law  was  confined  to  passages  in  legal  authorities  that 
he  had  read  to  secure  light  upon  the  speeches  of  Cicero, 
but  he  ardently  wished  to  see  the  subject  reorganized, 
and  had  definite  views  as  to  the  right  method,  which 

1  See  p.  83  f . 

2  See  Schol.  math.,  1.  II,  and  Nancel,  Kami  vita,  p.  34. 


HIGHER  AND  PROFESSIONAL   STUDIES  203 

would  probably  have  been  similar  to  that  used  else- 
where. Witness  his  appeal  to  the  noted  men  in  this 
line  at  the  time.  "Among  so  many  jurists,"  he  asks 
rhetorically,  "is  there  to  be  no  one  who  will  under- 
take to  clear  up  and  simplify  this  chaos?"1  His 
exhortation  was  afterward  effective,  and  such  logical 
principles  as  his  came  to  be  generally  utilized  in  the 
organizing  of  law. 

Hence  within  the  purview  of  this  remarkable  re- 
former fall  all  the  theology  and  education  of  the 
times.  He  wished  to  rid  Christianity  of  all  scholastic 
and  medieval  agglomerations  and  bring  it  back  to  the 
simple  belief  and  informal  organization  of  the  primi- 
tive days,  and,  in  his  efforts  to  accomplish  this,  did 
not  hesitate  to  oppose  both  Mother  Church  and  her  • 
Calvinistic  daughter.  His  reconstruction  of  the  mat- 
ter and  method  of  education  is  quite  as  worthy  of 
note,  and  eventually  resulted  in  a  new  presentation  of 
all  studies  in  the  secondary  and  higher  curricula. 

J  Schol.  math.,  1.  II,  near  the  end. 


CHAPTER  IX 

VALUE,  SPREAD,  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  RAMISM 

SUCH  were  the  contributions  made  by  Ramus  to 
the  progress  of  civilization  and  education.  The  im- 
pulse out  of  which  all  these  improvements  developed 
was  his  persistent  struggle  against  the  servile  attach- 
ment to  Aristotle  and  scholasticism  that  had  en- 
thralled the  sixteenth  century.  It  was  because  the 
implications  of  the  medieval  conception  of  the  Aris- 
totelian logic  underlay  all  the  life  and  studies  of  the 
times  that  he  found  it  necessary  to  oppose  the  Stagi- 
rite  so  vehemently,  and  that,  in  turn,  his  breach 
aroused  so  much  passion  and  hostility.  Hence  the 
most  fundamental  and  far-reaching  contribution  of 
Ramus  was  his  aid  to  the  emancipation  of  society 
from  the  bondage  to  medieval  authority, j  and  to 
the  enfranchisement  of  truth  and  free  investigation. 
Through  him  were  secured  some  latitude  in  the  field 
of  knowledge  and  freedom  from  the  ecclesiastical 
domination  of  reason. 

In  turning  his  back  upon  the  scholastic  wisdom, 

204 


VALUE,   SPREAD,   AND   INFLUENCE   OF  RAMISM      20$ 

Ramus  substituted  for  it  a  return  to  antiquity.  In 
this  he  reveals  his  temperamental  sympathy  with 
northern  humanism,  and,  although  his  Protestant 
inclinations  did  not  materialize  at  first,  the  Reforma- 
tion attitude  was  innate  in  him  and  seems  implied 
in  his  logic.  He  has  all  the  merits  and  faults  of  hu- 
manism, and  seems  to  have  been  largely  influenced 
by  the  treatises  of  Agricola,  Vives,  Sturm,  and 
Melanchthon.  However,  while  he  was,  like  all 
leaders  of  opinion,  somewhat  a  product  of  the  times, 
more  than  any  other  of  his  day  he  crystallized  and 
shaped  the  vague  and  inchoate  sentiments  that  were 
seeking  expression.  No  other  humanist  was  so  ex- 
treme in  his  opposition  to  medieval  and  scholastic 
thought,  or  carried  his  principles  into  such  radical 
execution.  While  building  somewhat  upon  his 
predecessors  and  the  advanced  thought  of  the  day, 
the  reforms  suggested  for  the  organization,  content, 
and  method  of  education  are  found  to  have  been  quite 
reconstructed,  systematized,  and  given  their  greatest 
advancement  through  him. 

This  humanistic  attitude  of  Ramus  prepares  us  to 
find  in  him  something  of  that  overemphasis  upon 
Latin  and  neglect  of  the  vernacular  that  afterward 
plunged  education  into  almost  as  fixed  a  mold 


206  PETER  ILUIUS 

as  scholasticism.  He  takes  even  his  educational 
principles  and  material  mostly  from  the  classical 
writers,  although  he  is  decidedly  eclectic  in  his  use  of 
their  thought.  The  basis  of  his  reforms  he  borrows 
from  Quintilian  and  Aristotle.  From  the  one  he  se- 
cures his  principle  of  making  each  art  follow  nature 
and  of  following  the  presentation  of  the  art  by  prac- 
tice,1 and  from  the  other  his  laws  of  truth,  justice,  and 
wisdom  in  arranging  the  content  of  the  liberal  arts.2 
Likewise,  he  took  most  of  his  material  in  grammar 
from  the  usage  of  classical  writers,  although  he  did  not 
recognize  the  absolute  authority  of  Varro,  Donatus, 
and  Priscian ;  his  rhetoric  he  borrowed  largely  from 
Cicero  and  Quintilian ;  in  dialectic  he  used  not  only 
Cicero,  but  even  the  despised  Aristotle ;  while  Euclid 
was  his  guide  in  mathematics ;  and  Pliny,  Vergil,  and 
Aristotle  furnished  most  of  the  'physics'  he  held 
should  be  taken  from  nature. 

Yet  Ramus  is  unwilling  to  follow  any  author  slav- 
ishly. He  selects,  in  accordance  with  reason,  the 
material  that  seems  to  be  natural.  While  the  classi- 
cal writers  are  the  sources  of  his  subject  matter,  he 
deals  with  each  one  critically  and  refuses  to  acknowl- 
edge authority.  He  estimates  the  value  even  of  those 
1  See  pp.  116  ff.  2  See  pp.  no  ff. 


VALUE,   SPREAD,   AND   INFLUENCE   OF   RAMISM      2O? 

from  whom  he  selects  according  to  his  fixed  principles 
of  subject  matter.  Whatever  portion  of  a  treatise 
does  not  conform  to  these  laws  he  either  reorganizes 
or  entirely  rejects.  He  eliminates  from  all  the  arts 
the  foreign  and  false,  he  closely  distinguishes  the 
boundaries  of  each  science,  and  he  rearranges  the 
content  so  that  no  repetitions  occur.  Hence  we  have 
seen  that  much  which  had  the  sanction  of  antiquity  or 
the  indorsement  of  medieval  traditions  was  dropped 
from  his  reconstruction  of  the  liberal  arts  and  from  his 
ethical  and  biblical  formulation  of  theology.  The  re- 
sult was  a  great  shortening  of  the  course  of  study 
and  a  remarkable  improvement  over  the  faults  of  the 
scholastic  texts  and  instruction,  and  even  the  short- 
comings of  the  classical  works.  This  economy  of 
time  and  effort,  and  increase  in  clearness,  simplicity, 
and  interest  may  have  tended  a  little  to  dilute  the 
material  and  separate  related  topics,  and  certainly 
subjected  Ramus  to  the  criticism  of  both  the  Pari- 
sian and  German  humanists  on  the  ground  of  opening 
the  door  to  superficiality  and  a  half-baked  education. 
But  his  reformation  in  the  content  of  the  curriculum 
was,  as  a  whole,  decidedly  in  the  interest  of  social 
progress  and  improved  pedagogy. 

Of  even  more  educational  value  was  his  develop- 


208  PETER  .RAMUS 

\  ment  of  method.  He  always  advocates  gradual  prog- 
ress from  the  easy  to  the  difficult,  and  fuses  theory 
with  practice  in  all  studies.  He  does  not  heap  up 
rules  for  the  sake  of  'discipline'  and  thus  make  them 
an  end  in  themselves,  but  recognizes  that  they  are 
but  the  means  to  the  true  end  of  use.  This  is  se- 
cured by  practice  in  which  there  is  a  steady  advance 
in  independence  for  the  student.  Moreover,  while 
the  various  liberal  arts  are  taught  in  different  years 
of  the  course,  in  each  one,  by  means  of  his  '  combined 
use/  practice  is  supposed  to  be  afforded  in  all  those 
that  have  been  previously  presented. 

In  all  this  advance  in  material  and  procedure, 
while  no  definite  aim  is  formulated,  Ramus  seems  to 
have  been  guided  by  that  underlying  principle  which 
is,  after  all,  in  every  age  the  real  purpose  of  education. 
His  system  implies  an  effort  to  produce  'social  effi- 
ciency.' The  content  of  this  ideal  must,  of  course, 
differ  from  age  to  age,  as  the  society  in  which  the  pupil 
lives  develops  and  changes,  and  the  school  practice 
is,  from  the  force  of  inertia  and  habit,  liable  to  be  left 
behind.  The  true  reformer  is  he  who  strives,  whether 
consciously  or  not,  to  present  a  reconstruction  of 
theory  that  will  meet  the  needs  of  the  times,  and  to 
insist  upon  its  incorporation  and  realization  in  the 


VALUE,  SPREAD,  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  RAMISM   209 

existing  educational  institutions.  Ramus  fully  meets 
those  tests.  His  reorganization  of  matter  and  refor- 
mulation of  method  were  intended  to  meet  the  de- 
mands of  the  day  for  effective  expression  in  writing 
and  speaking,  and  for  leadership  through  oratory 
and  a  mastery  of  Latin.  If  his  methods  of  attaining 
these  ends,  especially  in  such  'real'  studies  as  mathe- 
matics and  physics,  now  seem  to  us  verbal  and  formal, 
we  must  not  be  guilty  of  the  historical  fallacy  through 
neglecting  to  image  the  situation  as  it  was  then,  nor 
forget  the  constant  emphasis  that  Ramus  laid  upon 
'use,'  even  to  the  extent  of  being  pilloried  for  utili- 
tarianism. His  struggles  to  make  these  reforms 
effective  and  embody  them  in  educational  organiza- 
tion are  witnessed  not  only  in  his  specific  orations 
upon  this  subject,  but  in  practically  every  treatise  or 
work  that  he  wrote.  Together  with  his  constant 
effort  to  strike  the  shackles  from  the  search  for  truth 
and  to  point  the  way  toward  a  broader  ethics  and  re- 
ligion, these  strivings  of  a  lifetime  mark  Ramus  as  a 
great  reformer,  —  intellectual,  social,  religious,  and 
educational. 

The  ideas  of  Ramus  spread  rapidly  throughout 
Europe.  They  were  vigorously  debated  for  a  cen- 
tury or  more  by  partisans  and  adversaries  in  all  the 


210  PETER  RAMUS 

different  countries,  and  made  a  tremendous  impres- 
sion upon  philosophic  and  educational  thought. 
While  eventually  new  doctrines  replaced  those  of  the 
French  reformer,  the  intellectual  situation  was  per- 
manently modified  because  of  his  teachings.  Ramism 
had  perhaps  less  influence  in  France  than  in  Germany, 
but  even  there  it  found  many  ardent  advocates.  In 
depicting  his  life,  we  have  touched  upon  much  of 
the  discussion  and  strife  that  were  aroused  over  his 
teachings  hi  his  native  land.1  The  animus  of  the 
conservatives  who  defended  Aristotle  was  evident 
and  does  not  need  repetition.  At  various  French 
universities  the  Ramistic  principles  were  soon  pre- 
sented by  various  professors  and  met  with  wide 
adoption.  At  Paris  the  physicians,  Fernel  and  De 
Gorris,  and  a  large  number  in  the  faculty  of  arts 
supported  the  new  doctrines;  at  Rheims,  a  former 
colleague  of  Ramus,  the  Greek  scholar,  Alexandre, 
continued  the  teachings  he  had  acquired  at  Presles ; 
while  Jean  Bellon,  a  learned  jurist,  took  up  the  cud- 
gels at  Toulouse.  The  principles  spread  and  met 
with  a  host  of  followers,  who  were  ready  to  risk  an 
indictment  for  heresy  and  the  wrath  of  the  Holy 
League.2  Even  after  the  development  of  Cartesian- 

1  See  pp.  31  ff.  aiid  43  ff.  2  See  p.  13. 


VALUE,  SPREAD,  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  RAMISM   211 

ism,  we  find  the  philosophy  of  Ramus  frequently 
discussed,  and  as  late  as  1651  it  was  the  occasion  of  a 
serious  controversy  at  Paris  between  a  well-known 
historian  and  a  professor  in  the  College  of  France  on 
the  one  hand  and  certain  Jesuit  scholars  on  the 
other.1  While,  with  the  complete  rejection  of  all 
attempts  at  ecclesiastical  reform  and  the  domina- 
tion of  the  Jesuits  in  the  seventeenth  century,  the 
educational  reformation  also  vanished,  Ramism 
left  a  definite  impression  upon  French  thought. 
In  the  suggestions  of  this  sixteenth-century  re- 
former must  to  some  extent  be  sought  the  spiritual 
ancestry  of  Descartes,  the  Port  Royalists,  Gassendi, 
and  Voltaire. 

In  Spain  and  Portugal,  Ramism  was  not  well  re- 
ceived. Yet  the  celebrated  grammarian,  Sanchez, 
taught  the  liberal  arts  according  to  the  Ramian  prin- 
ciples, and  left  definite  traces  of  the  new  system  in 
the  University  of  Salamanca,  the  most  flourishing  in 
Spain.  The  philosophy  of  Ramus  was  bitterly  op- 
posed, too,  in  all  the  universities  of  Italy,  except 
Bologna,  and  most  of  its  partisans  felt  obliged  to  with- 
draw from  the  country  sooner  or  later.  The  most 
distinguished  of  all  these  was  Simoni,  who  defended 

1  See  Cossart,  Orationes  et  carmina,  pp.  73  and  104. 


212  PETER  RAMUS 

Ramism  against  the  attacks  of  Carpentarius  and 
Schegk.  But  we  might  perhaps  consider  as  continu- 
ing the  spirit  of  Ramism  a  number  of  later  Italian 
writers,  including  the  unfortunate  Bruno,  who  dis- 
tinguished themselves  by  their  attack  upon  Aristotle's 
philosophy.  The  Ramistic  philosophy  appeared  also 
in  Denmark,  thanks  to  Krag,  who  taught  it  zealously 
and  defended  it  in  his  writings.  In  the  Low  Countries 
it  was  early  brought  to  Douai  by  Nancel,  the  loyal 
pupil  of  Ramus,  and  throughout  these  lands  it  found 
an  untiring  interpreter  in  Snellius.  Nor  could  the 
new  philosophy  be  kept  out  of  the  universities  of 
Holland,  and  the  authorities  at  Leyden  were  forced 
to  admit  it  upon  equal  terms  with  the  Aristotelian. 
In  England  it  made  little  progress  at  Oxford,  which 
was  devoted  to  Aristotle,  but  Cambridge  proved  more 
hospitable.  At  the  latter  place,  through  the  influence 
of  Ascham  and  Sidney,  who  were  friendly  to  Ramism, 
it  was  largely  adopted.  When  it  was  attacked  by  the 
scholastic  and  mystic,  Everard  Digby,  it  was  warmly 
defended  by  William  Temple,  Sr.,  who  also  helped  to 
give  it  vogue.  The  discussion  that  arose  may  have 
been  the  means  of  starting  the  opposition  of  Bacon  to 
all  deductive  systems,  especially  as  Digby  was  prob- 
ably his  tutor.  However  that  may  be,  Ramism 


VALUE,  SPREAD,  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  RAMISM   213 

survived  and  flourished.  As  late  as  1672,  the  Uni- 
versity of  Cambridge  published  the  logic  of  Ramus 
with  a  commentary  by  Amesius,  and  the  same  year 
a  more  distinguished  honor  was  done  the  system 
through  the  appearance  of  a  Latin  treatise  by  the  poet 
Milton  upon  A  More  Complete  Organization  of  the  Art 
of  Logic  Arranged  according  to  the  System  of  Ramus.1 
An  even  better  footing  was  afforded  Ramism  in  Scot- 
land, since  the  regent  of  the  country,  James  Stuart, 
Count  of  Murray,  had  been  a  pupil  of  Ramus. 
Through  George  Buchanan,  another  friend,  it  is 
probable  that  the  Ramistic  philosophy  was  estab- 
lished at  the  University  of  St.  Andrews. 

It  was  in  Germany  and  Switzerland,  however,  that 
the  principles  of  Ramus  received  the  greatest  atten- 
tion and  exerted  the  widest  influence.  Despite  the 
opposition  of  Beza,  the  new  philosophy  attracted  a 
number  of  Genevan  scholars,  among  whom  was  the 
martyr  Arminius.  Basel,  Zurich,  Bern,  Lausanne, 
and  other  cities  of  Switzerland  received  the  new  dia- 
lectic with  even  more  favor,  and  Ramism  was  openly 
professed  by  men  like  Zwinger,  Freigius,  and  Aretius. 
It  was  not  a  passing  infatuation,  either,  for  it  is 

1  Joannis  Miltoni  Artis  Logics  Plenior  Institutio  ad  Petri  Kami 
Methodum  Coiicinnata.  (London,  1672.) 


214  PETER  RAMUS 

known  that  well  into  the  eighteenth  century  it  still 
existed  in  Switzerland. 

In  Alsace  the  influence  of  Sturm  accomplished  a 
general  spread  of  the  Ramian  doctrines,  and  at  S trass- 
burg  and  Savern  the  German  humanist  was  ably  aided 
by  several  scholars.  Freigius,  who  taught  both  at 
Freiburg  and  Altorf,  as  well  as  at  Basel,  Fabricius, 
rector  of  the  University  of  Diisseldorf ,  and  Chytraeus, 
rector  at  Rostock,  also  greatly  aided  in  the  dissemi- 
nation. A  swarm  of  disciples  openly  avowed  their 
convictions  throughout  Germany.  The  chair  of 
philosophy  at  nearly  all  the  other  Protestant  univer- 
sities, such  as  Gottingen,  Helmstadt,  Erfurt,  Leipzig, 
Marburg,  and  Hannover,  came  to  be  occupied  for  a 
time  by  a  Ramist.  Leading  philosophers,  jurists,  and 
theologians  joined  the  cause.  The  Lutherans,  how- 
ever, suspecting  that  the  Ramian  principles  were 
in  some  way  an  outgrowth  of  Calvinism,  made  a 
propaganda  of  the  dialectic  of  Melanchthon 1  in 
opposition,  and  prominent  adversaries  of  Ramism 
arose  at  Tubingen,  Altorf,  Heidelberg,  Wittenberg, 

1  The  Melanchthonian  logic,  which  was  in  general  use  at  German 
universities,  was  based  on  that  of  Aristotle,  although  somewhat 
improved  and  rhetorically  written.  While  Melanchthon  admitted 
that  certain  of  Aristotle's  writings  had  been  lost,  he  would  not 
concede  that  merely  fragments  were  left,  as  Ramus  claimed. 


VALUE,    SPREAD,    AND   INFLUENCE   OF  RAMISM      215 

and  other  universities,  and  the  contest  waxed  fast 
and  furious. 

The  controversy  at  the  University  of  Leipzig  be- 
tween 1576  and  1592,  of  which  we  possess  a  detailed 
account,1  is  probably  a  fair  type  of  what  was  gener- 
ally occurring  at  most  of  the  institutions.  Johannes 
Cramer,  a  master  of  standing  at  Leipzig,  several  times 
dean  of  the  philosophical  faculty  and  twice  even 
rector  of  the  university,  was  an  ardent  Ramist  and 
challenged  the  professor  of  dialectic,  who  was  ortho- 
dox in  his  philosophy,  to  a  public  debate.  When, 
however,  the  theses  of  Cramer  were  sent  to  the  dean, 
he  condemned  them  as  Ramistic,  and  declared  the 
debate  out  of  order.  Cramer  continued,  however, 
both  in  public  and  private,  to  present  Ramism  to 
the  youth  of  the  university,  and  for  a  series  of  years 
was  in  a  wrangle  with  one  or  another  of  his  colleagues. 
An  interdict  against  his  lectures  on  the  subject  was 
issued  by  the  faculty  of  philosophy  and  the  rector 
without  much  effect,  and,  after  examination  of  the 
notes  of  his  students  and  the  discovery  of  much  hereti- 
cal logic,  he  was  suspended  from  his  chair.  This  led 
to  a  riot  on  the  part  of  the  students,  and  while  it  was 

1  Voigt,  Ramismus  an  der  UniversiMtt  Leipzig,  in  Leips.  Sachs, 
gesett.  der  wiss.  Berichte  phil.,  1881. 


2l6  FBTER  RAMUS 

suppressed  by  the  rector,  the  faculty  was  forced  by 
public  sentiment  to  reinstate  Cramer,  after  a  public 
statement  that  he  had  never  intended  to  calumni- 
ate Aristotle  or  Melanchthon.  However,  he  clearly 
continued  to  teach  the  Ramian  doctrines,  and  the 
effects  of  this  instruction  were  only  too  obvious  when 
students  were  examined  for  their  degree.  In  three 
cases  they  were  allowed  to  graduate  only  upon  prom- 
ising the  faculty  never  to  teach  Ramism.  More 
trouble  was  soon  precipitated  and  Cramer  was  once 
more  unseated,  but  this  time  the  case  was  appealed 
to  the  elector.  As  this  sovereign  was  getting  along 
in  years,  he  referred  the  matter  to  his  progressive 
son,  who,  much  to  the  chagrin  of  the  conservative 
faculty,  expressed  his  surprise  that  university 
instruction  in  philosophy  should  be  limited  to  tra- 
ditional doctrines,  and  declared  that  only  by  free 
expression  could  any  progress  be  made.  He  repri- 
manded the  faculty  for  their  attempt  to  dispossess  a 
professor  appointed  by  the  sovereign,  and  demanded 
that  Cramer  be  restored.  After  his  rehabilitation 
half  a  dozen  outbreaks  against  Cramer  occurred,  and 
both  he  and  his  supporters  were  as  far  as  possible  de- 
prived of  official  recognition  and  constantly  hounded 
by  the  faculty.  Finally,  in  1592,  Cramer,  worn  out 


VALUE,  SPREAD,  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  RAMISM   217 

with  the  controversy,  resigned  voluntarily  and  be- 
came the  municipal  physician  for  his  native  town. 
The  faculty  then  were  careful  to  see  that  his  successor 
was  not  a  Ramist. 

Similar  contests  over  Ramism  must  have  been  go- 
ing on  at  the  other  universities.  These  seats  of  con- 
servatism were  not  quickly  or  easily  aroused  from 
their  routine,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  Ramus 
himself  at  Strassburg  and  Heidelberg.1  Early  in 
the  seventeenth  century  Ramism  was  generally  pro- 
scribed at  the  universities  of  Saxony,  the  Palatinate, 
and  Bavaria,  and  the  Ramists  sought  to  compromise 
by  combining  their  dialectic  with  that  of  Melanch- 
thon.  A  new  school  arose  out  of  this  union,  —  the 
so-called  'Philippo-Ramists,'  which  included  such 
philosophers  as  Frisius,  Buscher,  Casmann,  Kecker- 
mann,  and  Alstedt,  the  teacher  and  friend  of  Co- 
menius.  But,  like  most  compromises,  this  syn- 
cretism was  unsatisfactory  and  led  rather  to  the 
preservation  of  Aristotle  than  of  Ramus. 

Yet  the  influence  of  Ramism  cannot  be  regarded 
as  entirely  lost  to  philosophy  or  human  intelligence, 
either  in  Germany  or  elsewhere.  The  authority  of 
Aristotle  was  rudely  shaken,  and  the  way  to  free  \ 

1  See  pp.  96  f.       2  Cf.  the  Philippo-Ramian  Grammar  on  p.  132. 


2l8  PETER  RAMUS 

thought  was  opened.  Early  in  the  next  century 
came  the  work  of  Bacon,  Descartes,  and  Comenius, 
and  from  them  has  grown  that  apostolic  succession 
of  modern  thought,  —  Locke,  Berkeley,  Leibniz, 
Hume,  Kant,  and  Hegel  in  the  realm  of  speculation, 
and,  in  the  reformation  of  education,  Rousseau, 
Pestalozzi,  Herbart,  and  Froebel.  While  Ramus  and 
his  philosophy  cannot  be  interpreted  as  belonging  to 
this  awakened  group,  it  was  to  some  extent  through 
his  efforts  that  the  transition  was  made  from  scho- 
lasticism to  modern  philosophy  and  education.  He 
at  least  freed  the  human  spirit  from  the  dungeon  of 
Aristotle,  and  drew  it  forth  from  the  medieval  twi- 
light. He  improved  all  the  literary  and  expression 
studies,  and  helped  give  mathematics  and  science  a 
start.  It  seems  fitting,  therefore,  to  account  Peter 
Ramus  a  leader  in  sixteenth-century  reforms  and  in 
the  progress  toward  modern  civilization  and  enlight- 
enment. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I.  PRIMARY  SOURCES 

BANOSIUS,  T.  Kami  vita  in  Commentaria  de  rdigione  Chris- 
tiana (Frankfurt,  1576). 

CARPENTARIUS,  J.  Contra  importunas  Kami  actiones  (Paris, 
1566). 

FELIBIEN,  M.    Histoire  de  la  ville  de  Paris. 

FREIGHTS,  J.  T.  Commentaires  de  Ramus  sur  les  discours  de 
Ciceron  (Bale,  1574).  Preface  on  the  Life  of  Ramus. 

MILTON,  J.     Artis  logica  plenior  institutio  (London,  1672). 

NANCEL,  N.  DE.  Petri  Kami  Veromandui,  eloquential  el 
philosophies  apud  Parisios  professoris  regii  vita  (Paris, 

I599)- 
RAMUS,  P.     Dialeclka   partitiones  (sive  Institutiones),  1543; 

Aristotelicce  animadversiones,  1543 ;  Tres  Orationes  a 
tribus  liber alium  disciplinarum  professoribus,  1544; 
Euclides,  1544;  Oratio  habita  Lutetia  in  gymnasia 
Prtzlleorum,  1545 ;  Somnium  Scipionis  ex  libra  6  Cice- 
ronis  de  Republica,  1546;  Oratio  de  stttdiis  philosophic 
el  eloquentia  conjungendis,  1546;  Brutina  qu&stiones 
in  Oratorem  Ciceronis,  1547;  Rhetorics  distinctiones, 
1549;  Platonis  epistola  latince  facta,  1549;  M.  T. 
Ciceronis  de  Jato  liber,  1550;  M.  T.  Ciceronis  epistola 
nona  ad  P.  Lentulum,  1550;  Pro  philosophica  Parisian- 
sis  Academic  disciplina  Oratio,  1551;  Oratio  initio 
219 


220  PETER  RAMUS 

sus  professions  habita,  1551 ;  M.  T.  Ciceronis  pro  Caio 
Rabirio  perduellionis  reo  oratio,  1551 ;  Prslectiones  in 
librum  I  Ciceronis  de  legibus,  1554;  M.  Tulln  Ciceronis 
de  lege  agraria  contra  P.  Servilium  Rullum  tribunum  plebis 
orationes  tres,  1552 ;  M.  Tullii  Ciceronis  in  L.  Catilinam 
Orationes  7/77,  1553 ;  Arithmetics  libri  tres,  1555 ; 
Dialectique,  1555 ;  P.  Virgilii  Maronis  Bucolica,  1555 ; 
P.  Virgilii  Maronis  Georgica,  1556;  Dialectics  libri  duo, 
1556;  Audomari  Talsi  Admonitio  ad  Adrianum  Turne- 
bum,  1556;  M.  T.  Ciceronis  de  optima  genere  oratorum 
prsfatio  in  contrarias  jEschinis  et  Demosthenis  orationes, 
1557 ;  Ciceronianus,  1557 ;  Marci  Tulii  Ciceronis  fami- 
liarium  epistolarum  libri  XVI,  1557  ;  Oratio  de  legatione, 
1557;  Liber  de  moribus  veterum  Gallorum,  1558;  Libri 
de  Cssaris  militia,  1559;  Grammatics  I ibri  quattuor,  1559; 
Rudimenta  grammatics  (latins),  1559;  Schols  gram- 
matics, 1559;  Grammatica  grsca,  1560;  Rudimenta 
grammatics  grscs,  1560;  Gramere,  1562;  Procemium 
reformands  Parisiensis  academis,  and  Advertissements 
sur  la  reformation  de  I'universite  de  Paris,  1562;  Oratio 
de  professions  liberalium  artium,  1563  ;  Scholarum  physi- 
carum  libri  octo,  1565 ;  Scholarum  metaphysicarum  libri 
quattuor decim,  1566;  Actiones  dus  habits  in  senatu  pro 
regia  mathematics  professions  cathedra,  1566;  Preface 
sur  le  Proeme  des  mathematiques,  1566;  Procemium 
mathematicum,  1567;  La  Remonstrance  faite  au  conseil 
prive,  1567;  Audomari  Talsi  Rhetorica,  P.  Rami  prslec- 
tionibus  illustrata,  1567;  Rector i  et  Academis  Pari- 
siensi,  1568;  Geometries  libri  septem  et  mginti,  1569; 
Schols  in  liberates  artes,  1569;  Scholarum  mathemati- 
carum  libri  unus  et  triginta,  1569;  P.  Rami  et  Jacob  i 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  221 

Schccii  Epistola,  1569;  Defensio  pro  Aristotele  advcrsus 
Jac.  Schecium,  1571;  Basilea  ad  senatum  populumque 
BasUiensem,  1571;  Testamentum,  1574;  Preelectiones 
in  Ciceronis  orationes  octo  compares,  1574;  Commenta- 
riorum  de  religions  Christiana  libri  quattuor,  1576;  Pro- 
fessio  regia,  1576;  Collectanea  prafationes,  epistola, 
orationes,  1577 ;  M.  T.  Ciceronis  pro  M.  Cl.  Marcello 
oratio,  1582 ;  In  Ciceronis  orationes  et  scripta  nonnulla, 
1582;  Arithmetics  libri  duo  et  Algebra  todidem,  1586; 
Aristotelis  Politica,  1601 ;  Epistola  varies. 

II.  SECONDARY  SOURCES 

BAILLET,  A.    Jugements    des    Savans    sur    les    principaux 

ouvrages  des  auteurs,  Amsterdam,  1725.     V,  125  f. ;  VIII, 

204  f . 

BARNI,  J.  R.     Les  Martyres  de  la  libre  pensee.     Pp.  107-135. 
BAYLE,  P.     Dictionnaire   historique    et   critique,  Rotterdam, 

1697.     Ramus. 
CARAMAN,  LE  DUC  DE.    Histoire  des  revolutions  de  la  philoso- 

phie  en  France.     Ill,  pp.  245  ff. 
CREVIER,  J.  B.     Histoire  de  VUniversite  de  Paris,  Paris,  1761. 

V  and  VI. 
DENIFLE,  H.,  et  CHATELAIN,  JE.     Chartularium  universilatis 

Parisiensis,  Paris,  1889-1897. 
DESMAZE,  C.  A.     Petrus  Ramus,   professeur    au  College  de 

France,  sa  vie,  ses  ecrits,  sa  mort,  Paris,  1864. 
Du  BOULAY,  N.     Histoire  de  I' University  de  Paris. 
GAILLARD,  G.  N.     Histoire  de  Francois  I,  Paris,  1766.    VII 

and  VIII. 
GUGGENHEIM,  M.    Beitrdge  zur  Biographic  des  Petrus  Ramus 


222  PETER  RAMUS 

(Zeilschrift  jiir  Philosophic  und  Philosopkische  Krttik, 

Band  120,  Heft  2,  ss.  140-153),  Leipzig,  1903. 
JOURDAIN,  C.     Histoire  de  I' Universite  de  Paris  au  XVII*  et 

au  XVIII*  siecle,  Paris,  1862-1866. 
LANTOINE,  H.     Histoire     de    V enseignement     secondaire    en 

France  au  XVII*  siecle,  Paris,  1874. 

LOBSTEIN,  P.     Petrus  Ramus  als  Theologe,  Strassburg,  1878. 
OWEN,  J.     The  Skeptics  of  the  French  Renaissance,  London, 

1893.    Chap.  II. 
PRANTL,  K.  VON.     Ueber  P.   Ramus    (Miinchener  Sitzungs- 

berichte,  1878). 

SAISSET,  E.  E.     Les  precurseurs  de  Descartes,  Paris,  1862. 
SCHWEITZER,  A.    Die  Philosophic  des  Petrus  Ramus  (Erster 

Artikel,  10,  of  Die  Entwickelung  des  Moralsystems  in  der 

Reformirten  Kirche),  Leipzig,  1850. 
VOIGT,  G.     Ueber  den  Ramismus  an  der  Universitdt  Leipzig 

(Berichte  fiber  die    Verhandlungen  der  Gesellschaft  der 

Wissenschaften,  Band  99),  Leipzig,  1887. 
WADDINGTON,  C.    De  Petri  Rami  vita,  scriptis,  philosophia, 

Paris,  1848. 
WADDINGTON,  C.    Ramus,  sa  vie,  ses  ecrits,  et  ses  opinions, 

Paris,  1855. 
WURKERT,  G.     Die    encyclopadie    des    Petrus    Ramus,    Ein 

Reformversuch  der  Gelehrtenschule  des  16.  Jahrhunderts, 

Leipzig,  1898. 


INDEX 


Abelard,  16. 

Academic,  52. 

Academy,  Talon,  42. 

Advice  on  the  Reformation  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Paris,  78-84,  202. 

Agricola,  2,  17,  g8,  142,  205. 

Aim  of  Ramus,  108. 

Albigenses,  7. 

Alexander  of  Villedieu,  16,  38,  121. 

Alexandra,  Barthelemy,  28,  210. 

Alstedt,  217. 

Altorf,  214. 

Amboise,  Peace  of,  86. 

Amesius,  213. 

'Analysis,'  117,  140,  165. 

Animadversions  on  Aristotle,  30,  34, 
39,  59,  143- 

Apollonius,  60. 

Archimedes,  43,  60,  61. 

Aretius,  213. 

Aristotelianism,  98. 

Aristotle,  16,  17,  22,  25,  26,  27,  30,  64, 
72, 144, 169, 175, 176,  206,  217. 

Arminius,  213. 

Ascham,  4, 61,  73,  212. 

Augsburg,  Q8. 

Bacon,  212,  218. 

Banosius,  19. 

Basel,  10, 94, 96,  213, 214. 

Bavaria,  217. 

Bellon,  210. 

Berkeley,  218. 

Bern,  213. 

Beza,  10,  74, 99, 103,  200,  201,  213. 

Bourbon,  Charles  of,  31, 104. 

Bourbons,  11, 12. 

Brahg,  99. 

Bruno,  212. 

Buchanan,  George,  213. 

Budaeus,  4. 


BuUinger,  95. 
Buscher,  217. 

Calvin,  7, 10,  72, 95, 191, 198. 

Calvinism  n,  214. 

Cambridge,  4,  212, 213. 

Camerarius,  61. 

Carpentarius,  41, 45, 46,  63  f.,  70, 88  ff ., 

104,  106,  212. 
Gasman n,  217. 
Catherine  de'  Medici,  i  r . 
Catherine  Petit,  95. 
Catholics  in  France,  10  fif. 
Cayet,  19. 
Charles,    Cardinal    of    Lorraine,    see 

Lorraine. 
Charles  V,  8,  10. 
Charles  IX,  n. 
Charpentier,  see  Carpentarius. 
Cheke,  4. 
Chytraeus,  214. 
Cicero,    17,    42,    43,    134,   135,   157, 

206. 

Coccius,  95. 
Colet,  5,  ft. 

Coligny,  Admiral,  12,  13. 
College  of  Ave  Maria,  28,  29,  59. 
College  of  Beauvais,  33. 
College  of  Boncour,  32,  45. 
College  of  Clermont,  87. 
College  of  France,  4,  13,  15,  40,  45, 

100,  104,  162. 
College  of  Mans,  27. 
College  of  Navarre,  16,  20,  27,  108. 
College  of  Presles,  13,  14,  39,  45,  47, 

85,  100,  104. 

College  Royal,  see  College  of  France. 
Colloquy  of  Poissy,  10,  73,  100. 
Comenius,  217,  218. 
Commentaries  on  the  Christian  Religion, 

97,  184  ff. 


223 


224 


INDEX 


Committee  of  Seven,  69,  78. 

Cond6,  Prince  of,  12,  13,  70. 

Consonants,  Ramist,  125. 

Cosel,  Dampestre,  88. 

Cramer,  215  f. 

Curricujum    in   University  of    Paris, 

14  f- 
Cust,  19. 

De  Disciplines,  29. 

De  Gorris,  210. 

De  1'Hospital,  76. 

De  Montuelle,  33. 

Demosthenes,  157. 

Descartes,  162,  211,  218. 

Despantere,  121. 

Dialectic,  17,  21,  29,  58,  141-159. 

'  Dichotomy,"  130,  164. 

Digby,  Everard,  212. 

Diplomatic  missions  of  Ramus,  67  fi. 

Disputation,  21  f.,  29,  114. 

DoctrinaU,  121. 

Dolet,  Etienne,  18. 

Donatus,  6,  121,  123,  206. 

D'Ossat,  87. 

Douai,  212. 

Dream  of  Scipio,  40. 

Du  Bellay,  44. 

Dubois,  1 8. 

Du  Chastel,  33,  43. 

Edict  of  Francis  against  Ramus,  36. 

Edict  of  Nantes,  13. 

Edict  of  Toleration,  12,  76. 

Edward  VI,  9. 

Elegancies  of  Latin,  121. 

Elizabeth,  9. 

Erasmus,  2,  4,  6,  7,  16,  115. 

Erfurt,  4,  214. 

'  Esoteric,'  1 20. 

Ethics,  73. 

Ethics  of  Ramus,  173-184. 

Euclid,  38,  43,  59,  161,  165. 

'  Exoteric,'  120. 

'  Explanation,'  116,  117,  118,  140. 

Fabricius,  214. 
Ferdinand  of  Hapsburg,  9. 
Fernel,  210. 
Finfe,  18,  59. 


Forcadel,  61. 

Francis  I,  4,  10,  31,  34. 

Francis  II,  1 1 . 

Francis,  Duke  of  Guise,  see  Guise. 

Frankfurt,  99. 

Frederick  III,  97. 

Freiburg,  94,  214. 

Freigius,  19,  94,  213,  214. 

'  French  Plato,'  92. 

Frisius,  217. 

Froebel,  218. 

Galen,  17,  24,  43. 

GaUand,  32,  33,  41,  44,  45,  63,  70. 

Gassendi,  211. 

'Genesis,'  117,  140,  165. 

Geneva,  10,  99,  103. 

Gottingen,  214. 

Govea,  32,  33. 

Grammar,  57,  121-134. 

Grocyn,  4. 

Grynaeus,  Samuel,  95. 

Guise,  Duke  of,  n,  77. 

Guises,  12,  13,  69,  71,  78,  88,  90. 

Gymnasien,  3. 

Hannover,  214 

Hegel,  218. 

Heidelberg,  4,  93,  96,  98,  214,  217. 

Heliogabalus,  117. 

Helmstadt,  214. 

Hennuyer,  27,  32. 

Henry  II,  n,  41,  42,  49,  50. 

Henry  III,  n. 

Henry  IV,  13. 

Henry  VIII,  7,  9- 

Herbart,  218. 

Hervagius,  94. 

Hieronymians,  2. 

Hippocrates,  24,  43. 

Holy  League,  13. 

Huguenots,  n,  105;   of  state,  12,  85; 

of  religion,  12,  13. 
Humanism,  i  ff.,  15,  98. 
Hume,  218. 
Huss,  7. 

Inaugural  address,  48  ff . 
Institutes  of  Christianity,  10. 
Institutions  of  Dialectic,  30,  35,  58. 


INDEX 


225 


Jena,  4. 

Jesuit  colleges,  3,  87. 

Jesuits,  211. 

Kant,  218. 
Keckermann,  217. 
Konigsberg,  4. 
Krag,  212. 

La  Rochelle,  12,  200. 

Latin  grammar  school,  5. 

Lausanne,  99,  213. 

Law,  79,  82,  202. 

Laws  of  '  truth,'  '  justice,'  and  '  wis- 
dom,' ii  f.,  135,  163,  206. 

Lefevre,  6,  7,  18. 

Leibniz,  218. 

Leipzig,  4,  214,  215. 

Le  Masson,  18. 

Lesage,  39,  41. 

Leyden,  212. 

Linacre,  4. 

Locke,  218. 

Lorraine,  Charles,  Cardinal  of,  n,  15, 
31,  41,  46,  49,  51,  74,  ?8,  ioo,  105. 

Loyola,  3. 

Luther,  6,  7,  72,  196,  198. 

Lutherans,  214. 

'  Maecenas,'  53  ff.,  88. 

Marburg,  214. 

Margaret  of  Navarre,  10. 

Masters  of  university  colleges,  16. 

Mathematics,  59,  88  f.,  160-165. 

Medicine,  80,  82,  202. 

Meigret,  18. 

Melanchthon,   6,   113,   131,   134,  i3Q 

205,  214,  217. 
Metaphysics,  87. 
Methods,  21  ff.,  56  f. 
Milton,  213. 
Montauban,  12. 
Montluc,  Jean  de,  105. 
More,  4. 

'  Nature,'  109  f. 
Nicholas  of  Nancel,  19,  212. 
Ntmes,  12,  200. 
Nuremberg,  98. 


CEcolampadius,  95. 
Organon,  23,  142. 
Oxford,  4,  212. 

Palatinate,  92,  96,  217. 

Pappus,  60. 

Parlement  of  Paris,  13,  33. 

Perion,  32,  43,  63. 

Peripatetics,  31,  37. 

Pestalozzi,  218. 

Petromachy,  44. 

Philip  II,  9. 

Philippo-Ramian  Grammar,  132. 

Philippo-Ramists,  217. 

Physics,  62,  168—172. 

Plato,  1 6,  17,  24,  27,  42. 

Platter,  94. 

Pliny,  169. 

Poles,  the,  105. 

Port  Royalists,  211. 

'Practice,'  109,  114-118,  140. 

Principles  of  Ramus,  100-119,  206. 

Principles  of  '  system,'  110-113. 

Priscian,  16,  121,  123,  206. 

Proclus,  61. 

Pronunciation,  62  f.,  125. 

Protestants,  10  ff.,  72,  95. 

Quadrivium,  59,  120,  160-172. 
Quintilian,   18,  42,   43,  44,   134,   135, 
139,  206. 

Rabelais,  44. 
Reformation,  6,  8,  188. 
Renaissance,  i,  2,  5,  8,  188. 
Republic,  39. 
Reuchlin,  2. 
Rheims,  210. 
Rheticus,  61. 
Rhetoric,  58,  134-141. 
Rostock,  214. 
Rousseau,  218. 
Royal  lecturers,  16. 
Rue  de  Fouarre,  14. 

St.  Bartholomew's  Day,  manacre  of, 

13,  105. 

St.  Denis,  90,  102. 
St.  Germain,  67. 
St.  Paul's  School,  5. 


226 


INDEX 


Sanchez,  an. 

Sapiens,  29. 

Savern,  214. 

Saxony,  217. 

Schegk,  96,  212. 

Schreckfuchs,  94. 

Serenus,  60. 

Sidney,  212. 

Simler,  95. 

Simoni,  211. 

Snellius,  212. 

Social  efficiency,  208. 

Socrates,  17,  24,  38. 

Sorbon,  Robert,  14. 

Sorbonne,  14,  62,  125. 

Stoics,  17. 

Strassburg,  3,  93,  98,  214,  217. 

Stuart,  James,  213. 

Studies  in  Dialectic,  21,  144. 

Studies  in  Physics,  168. 

Studies  in  the  Liberal  Arts,  17,  96. 

Sturm,  3,  6,  17,  29,  73,  93,  113, 115, 

118,  161,  205,  214. 
Sulzer,  95. 
Syntax,  124,  128  f. 
'System,'  109,  110-114. 

Talon,  28,  38,  39,  40. 
Temple,  William,  212. 
Theodosius,  60. 
Theology,  98,  184-202. 
Toulouse,  210. 
Tousan,  65. 


Tremellius,  96. 
Trivium,  57,  59,  120-159. 
Tubingen,  4,  96,  214. 
Turnebus,  65  f.,  70. 

University  of  Bologna,  93,  211. 
University  of  Diisseldorf,  214. 
University  of  Leipzig,  215-217. 
University  of  Paris,  3,  10,  13,  14,  28, 

36. 

University  of  St.  Andrews,  213. 
University  of  Salamanca,  211. 
'  Usuarius,'  57- 

Valla,  17,  142. 

Valence,  Bishop  of,  105. 

Varro,  206. 

Vassy,  massacre  at,  12,  85. 

Vergil,  121,  169. 

Vives,  17,  113,  115,  118,  142,  205. 

Voltaire,  211. 

Waldenses,  7,  10. 
Westphalia,  92. 
Wittenberg,  4,  214. 
Wolf,  94. 
Wolsey,  4. 
Wyclif,  7- 

Zurich,  213. 

Z winger,  94,  98,  213. 

Zwiogli,  7,  72, 191, 196, 198' 


r  I  'HE  following   pages    contain    advertisements    of 
books  by  the  same  author  or  on  kindred  subje&s. 


Great  Educators  of  Three  Centuries 

BY  FRANK  PIERREPONT  GRAVES,  PH.D. 

Professor  of  the  History  of  Education  in  the 
Ohio  State  University 

This  book  furnishes  a  popular  account  of  the  life  and  work  of 
the  men  who,  during  the  past  three  centuries,  have  introduced 
various  innovations  and  reforms  into  modern  education.  While 
the  facts  of  biography  are  narrated  somewhat  at  length,  an  effort 
has  been  made  to  eliminate  everything  that  does  not  have  some 
bearing  upon  the  contributions  of  the  educator  under  consideration. 

"As  history  is  largely  a  matter  of  biography,  and  as  institutions  are  usually 
the  lengthened  shadow  of  a  man,  so  the  historic  trend  of  education  can  be 
indicated  well  enough  for  the  casual  reader  by  an  intelligent  summary  of  the 
work  of  a  few  great  educators,  together  with  comments  on  the  tendencies  and 
interrelations  of  that  work.  Professor  Graves  has  gotten  up  such  a  summary 
in  his  brief  volume,  in  which  he  has  judiciously  selected  and  clearly  stated  his 
facts.  His  comments  on  these  facts  are  illumination  and  his  comments  would 
seem  to  be  well  founded."  —  Boston  Evening  Transcript. 

"The  thoroughly  painstaking  method  of  Professor  Graves  is  evident  on 
every  page  of  these  splendidly  written  books.  A  scientific  and  scholarly  atti- 
tude combined  with  common-sense  makes  these  by  all  odds  the  most  practical 
text-books  yet  published  in  this  field."  —  President  W.  G.  CLIPPINGER,  of 
Otterbein  University. 

"The  social  settings,  dialectic  methods,  and  ultimate  achievements  of 
nearly  a  score  of  illustrious  world  reformers  are  here  brilliantly  outlined."  — 
The  Philadelphia  North  American. 

"  Some  of  those  who  are  complaining  about  present-day  teaching  have  not 
the  slightest  notion  of  the  origins  of  modern  practice.  .  .  .  Partisans  in 
either  camp  will  do  well  to  read  Professor  Graves's  new  book,  which  should 
help  the  layman,  to  understand  contemporary  educational  aims  and  practices." 
—  Professor  M.  V.  O'SHEA  in  The  Dial. 


THE   MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  York 


BY  WILLIAM  HAWLEY  SMITH 

All  the  Children  of  All  the  People 

A  Study  of  the  Attempt  to  Educate  Everybody 

Cloth  ismo  306  pages  Index  $1.50  net;  by  mail, 

The  task  of  trying  to  educate  everybody  which  our  public 
schools  are  attempting  to  perform,  has  proved  far  more  diffi- 
cult than  the  originators  of  the  system  deemed  it  would  be 
when  they  set  out  upon  the  undertaking.  The  author  gives 
this  problem  careful  study  and  consideration  and  his  book 
will  prove  an  invaluable  help  toward  its  successful  solution. 

BY  FRANK  LOUIS  SOLDAN 

Late  Superintendent  of  Schools,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

The  Century  and  the  School 

AND  OTHER  EDUCATIONAL  ESSAYS 

Cloth         i2mo         $J.2j  net;  by  mail,  $1.33 

The  essays  brought  together  in  this  volume  were  selected 
by  a  group  of  the  late  Superintendent  Soldan's  intimate  asso- 
ciates. The  titles  are :  The  Century  and  the  School ;  Mo- 
rality and  Education ;  What  is  a  Fad  ? ;  Teachers'  Duties ; 
Educational  Ideas  in  Dickens'  Novels ;  A  Visit  to  German 
Schools;  Reading  in  the  Higher  Grades;  Folklore  and 
Fairy  Tales. 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Av«nus  New  York 


NOV 

NOV 
NOV 

Dtt 
DEC 

DEC 

JAN 
f 

Form  L9 


University  of  California 
SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  AQSAlendfV  1)024-1388 
Ret J ^ 

ved. 


NUv 


UCLA-ED/PSYCH  Library 

LB475R1G7 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  UBRWY  FACILITY 


